'This is not a punishment': Partner of cyclist killed in accident hits out at sentence

THE partner of a cyclist killed by a careless driver has labelled his sentence a “joke” and called for tougher punishments.

Paul Brown, 30, pictured right, was given 240 hours unpaid work and banned from driving for 12 months yesterday after he admitted causing father-of-two Joe Wilkins’s death by careless driving last year. Speaking to the Oxford Mail, Nicci Saunders, 40, called for the Government to impose longer driving bans for those convicted of causing death by careless driving.

Miss Saunders, from Eynsham, said: “The fact the judge put this case in the lower level of careless driving is just a joke really.

“For what he has done, and generally for people who do that, there needs to be a prison sentence. A year ban is just no punishment.”

Miss Saunders said those who cause death by careless driving should be banned from getting behind the wheel for at least five years.

She added: “At the end of the day he can carry on with his life almost as normal. It is for life for us.”

She said since the tragedy their daughters, Kyra, six, and Cory, four, have been waking up crying and cannot remember what their father looked like.

Miss Saunders said: “These girls will never have their dad around – their lives and mine will never be the same.”

“You simply did not see Joseph Wilkins in the darkness until it was too late, albeit you ought to have seen him before you did and then taken the simple evasive action necessary to avoid him.

“You broke down sobbing in the witness box in the trial and express deep remorse for what you have done and deep sympathy for Joseph Wilkins’s family.”

Brown was given a community order to complete 240 hours of unpaid work within 12 months, a specified activity requirement to complete four sessions of restorative justice within 12 months and a 12-month supervision requirement.

I think the law currently does not reflect the potential danger driving a motor vehicle presents. You can see that although someone is killed, because society views driving as an everyday activity the intrinsic threat of a tonne of metal travelling at 60mph is not considered. Rather for it to be classified as "dangerous" the person operating the vehicle has to demonstrate intent to threaten or injure. The legal defence goes that the action and not the outcome should be tried i.e. if you are careless and someone happens to be in the way, this is circumstance, someone could easily have not been in the way - it would have been the same action.

However fundamentally the law should reflect the fact that someone easily *could* be in the way when you are careless and therefore the activity (driving) needs to be taken a lot more seriously by society when the potential damage it does is properly considered.

I think the law currently does not reflect the potential danger driving a motor vehicle presents. You can see that although someone is killed, because society views driving as an everyday activity the intrinsic threat of a tonne of metal travelling at 60mph is not considered. Rather for it to be classified as "dangerous" the person operating the vehicle has to demonstrate intent to threaten or injure. The legal defence goes that the action and not the outcome should be tried i.e. if you are careless and someone happens to be in the way, this is circumstance, someone could easily have not been in the way - it would have been the same action.
However fundamentally the law should reflect the fact that someone easily *could* be in the way when you are careless and therefore the activity (driving) needs to be taken a lot more seriously by society when the potential damage it does is properly considered.Danny A

No jail time for her either.
These judges are out of touch with the concept of justice;shame on them.

A theatrical sob in the dock also worked for the A420 killer Thuli Whitehouse.
http://www.oxfordmai
l.co.uk/news/1537611
.guilty_verdict_on_d
riving_death/
No jail time for her either.
These judges are out of touch with the concept of justice;shame on them.MrSooty

It is not possible to stuff your face with a sandwich, using the same hand to change gear, without your driving being impaired. The CPS guidelines are perfectly clear, ANYTHING that interferes with concentration whilst driving, whether chatting on a mobile, eating a meal whilst driving, fiddling with a sat nav or whatever is Dangerous Driving. Juries are unwilling to convict because they think "Hang on, I've eaten at the wheel, I don't want to go to prison" so they find Not Guilty of Dangerous Driving. This is a farce. Paul Brown is a killer. He killed someone who had done nothing wrong because Paul Brown was too arrogant/lazy to pull over and finish stuffing his face. This is not a punishment. This verdict sends out a very clear message

"Don't worry if your stupid, reckless, selfish behaviour whilst driving kills a cyclist, your punishment will be the same as for spraying graffiti on a wall or stealing a chicken from a supermarket."

It is not possible to stuff your face with a sandwich, using the same hand to change gear, without your driving being impaired. The CPS guidelines are perfectly clear, ANYTHING that interferes with concentration whilst driving, whether chatting on a mobile, eating a meal whilst driving, fiddling with a sat nav or whatever is Dangerous Driving. Juries are unwilling to convict because they think "Hang on, I've eaten at the wheel, I don't want to go to prison" so they find Not Guilty of Dangerous Driving. This is a farce. Paul Brown is a killer. He killed someone who had done nothing wrong because Paul Brown was too arrogant/lazy to pull over and finish stuffing his face. This is not a punishment. This verdict sends out a very clear message
"Don't worry if your stupid, reckless, selfish behaviour whilst driving kills a cyclist, your punishment will be the same as for spraying graffiti on a wall or stealing a chicken from a supermarket."Stevo98

According to CPS charging and prosecution guidance 'driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment' is considered dangerous driving.

The Highway Code also states that 'there is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times.'

The verdict is a farce. A killer driver is getting a slap on the wrist. Want to kill someone? Do it with a car, it's no big deal.

According to CPS charging and prosecution guidance 'driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment' is considered dangerous driving.
The Highway Code also states that 'there is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times.'
The verdict is a farce. A killer driver is getting a slap on the wrist. Want to kill someone? Do it with a car, it's no big deal.Stevo98

Exactly what good would jailing the guy do? He has to live with this every day now. Is he likely to do it again?

Blame culture is out of control. I can fully understand the family of the deceased are in a terrible state right now, but really jailing this man would make absolutely no difference, other than criminalising somebody that made a tragic misjudgement.

Exactly what good would jailing the guy do? He has to live with this every day now. Is he likely to do it again?
Blame culture is out of control. I can fully understand the family of the deceased are in a terrible state right now, but really jailing this man would make absolutely no difference, other than criminalising somebody that made a tragic misjudgement.scampbird

scampbird wrote:
Exactly what good would jailing the guy do? He has to live with this every day now. Is he likely to do it again?

Blame culture is out of control. I can fully understand the family of the deceased are in a terrible state right now, but really jailing this man would make absolutely no difference, other than criminalising somebody that made a tragic misjudgement.

It would send out a clear message to drivers that killing someone by behaving like a selfish idiot whilst driving a ton of steel at lethal speeds means you will go to prison. Prison has wider repercussions than simple punishment. Paul Brown belongs in prison, his incarceration would act as a deterrent to other stupid, selfish, arrogant fools who externalise the risk of their anti-social behaviour.

Sending Paul Brown to prison would possibly have saved lives, it would certainly concentrate drivers' minds so that they don't treat their responsibilities as a joke.

[quote][p][bold]scampbird[/bold] wrote:
Exactly what good would jailing the guy do? He has to live with this every day now. Is he likely to do it again?
Blame culture is out of control. I can fully understand the family of the deceased are in a terrible state right now, but really jailing this man would make absolutely no difference, other than criminalising somebody that made a tragic misjudgement.[/p][/quote]It would send out a clear message to drivers that killing someone by behaving like a selfish idiot whilst driving a ton of steel at lethal speeds means you will go to prison. Prison has wider repercussions than simple punishment. Paul Brown belongs in prison, his incarceration would act as a deterrent to other stupid, selfish, arrogant fools who externalise the risk of their anti-social behaviour.
Sending Paul Brown to prison would possibly have saved lives, it would certainly concentrate drivers' minds so that they don't treat their responsibilities as a joke.Stevo98

Whilst I am very sorry for the cyclists family I do feel that this highlights the stupidity of matching frail human bodies to speeding metal. We desperatly need to get bikes off the road either by new bike lanes everywhere or ban them. Cyclists currently are a danger to themselves and everybody else. They hold up traffic and impede car and lorry drivers by their slow speed. Certainly bike club outings where 10-50 cyclist ride together should be totally banned as should pairs of cyclists that ride side by side.

Whilst I am very sorry for the cyclists family I do feel that this highlights the stupidity of matching frail human bodies to speeding metal. We desperatly need to get bikes off the road either by new bike lanes everywhere or ban them. Cyclists currently are a danger to themselves and everybody else. They hold up traffic and impede car and lorry drivers by their slow speed. Certainly bike club outings where 10-50 cyclist ride together should be totally banned as should pairs of cyclists that ride side by side.bodchris

bodchris wrote:
Whilst I am very sorry for the cyclists family I do feel that this highlights the stupidity of matching frail human bodies to speeding metal. We desperatly need to get bikes off the road either by new bike lanes everywhere or ban them. Cyclists currently are a danger to themselves and everybody else. They hold up traffic and impede car and lorry drivers by their slow speed. Certainly bike club outings where 10-50 cyclist ride together should be totally banned as should pairs of cyclists that ride side by side.

The more cyclists we get on the roads the safer the roads become for everyone.

International research reveals that as cycling participation increases, a cyclist is far less likely to collide with a motor vehicle or suffer injury and death - and what's true for cyclists is true for pedestrians. And it's not simply because there are fewer cars on the roads, but because motorists seem to change their behaviour and drive more safely when they see more cyclists and pedestrians around.

Studies in many countries have shown consistently that the number of motorists colliding with walkers or cyclists doesn't increase equally with the number of people walking or bicycling. For example, a community that doubles its cycling numbers can expect a one-third drop in the per-cyclist frequency of a crash with a motor vehicle.

Want to make the roads safer? Encourage cycling, and send pathetic ignorant twits like Paul Brown to prison where he belongs.

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
Whilst I am very sorry for the cyclists family I do feel that this highlights the stupidity of matching frail human bodies to speeding metal. We desperatly need to get bikes off the road either by new bike lanes everywhere or ban them. Cyclists currently are a danger to themselves and everybody else. They hold up traffic and impede car and lorry drivers by their slow speed. Certainly bike club outings where 10-50 cyclist ride together should be totally banned as should pairs of cyclists that ride side by side.[/p][/quote]Yeah, cos cyclists killed eleventy million motorists last year. Oh no, sorry, it was actually zero.
The more cyclists we get on the roads the safer the roads become for everyone.
International research reveals that as cycling participation increases, a cyclist is far less likely to collide with a motor vehicle or suffer injury and death - and what's true for cyclists is true for pedestrians. And it's not simply because there are fewer cars on the roads, but because motorists seem to change their behaviour and drive more safely when they see more cyclists and pedestrians around.
Studies in many countries have shown consistently that the number of motorists colliding with walkers or cyclists doesn't increase equally with the number of people walking or bicycling. For example, a community that doubles its cycling numbers can expect a one-third drop in the per-cyclist frequency of a crash with a motor vehicle.
Want to make the roads safer? Encourage cycling, and send pathetic ignorant twits like Paul Brown to prison where he belongs.Stevo98

bodchris wrote:
Whilst I am very sorry for the cyclists family I do feel that this highlights the stupidity of matching frail human bodies to speeding metal. We desperatly need to get bikes off the road either by new bike lanes everywhere or ban them. Cyclists currently are a danger to themselves and everybody else. They hold up traffic and impede car and lorry drivers by their slow speed. Certainly bike club outings where 10-50 cyclist ride together should be totally banned as should pairs of cyclists that ride side by side.

Why not ban cars and get them off the roads. They are doing the killing not the cyclists.

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
Whilst I am very sorry for the cyclists family I do feel that this highlights the stupidity of matching frail human bodies to speeding metal. We desperatly need to get bikes off the road either by new bike lanes everywhere or ban them. Cyclists currently are a danger to themselves and everybody else. They hold up traffic and impede car and lorry drivers by their slow speed. Certainly bike club outings where 10-50 cyclist ride together should be totally banned as should pairs of cyclists that ride side by side.[/p][/quote]Why not ban cars and get them off the roads. They are doing the killing not the cyclists.jochta

If the sentence was one month or sixty years, it would not be enough to equate to taking an innocent life, one that was dedicated to being a loving father and a great role model to others by wanting to protect his community.
The fact he admitted causing Joe's death should be enough for any judge to pass a custodial sentence onto Brown, this ruling just sends out the wrong message and is for want of a better word, pathetic!
If Brown has the chance to face the family, he should drop to his knees and show how sorry he is by asking for forgiveness, and then spend the rest of his life giving back to the community he has hurt so deeply, actions speak louder than words.
Many families lose someone close and spend their life trying to make sense of it and wanting justice of some kind, this is something that does not always happen, sometimes you hear things happen to right that wrong, I for one, hope that Brown does in some way use his life to right this wrong doing.
To Nicci, you have wonderful family and friends who I am sure will never let your girls forget Joe, they will support you for the years to come and make sure Joe's memory lives on.
To the Eynsham community, do what you do best, look after your own.

If the sentence was one month or sixty years, it would not be enough to equate to taking an innocent life, one that was dedicated to being a loving father and a great role model to others by wanting to protect his community.
The fact he admitted causing Joe's death should be enough for any judge to pass a custodial sentence onto Brown, this ruling just sends out the wrong message and is for want of a better word, pathetic!
If Brown has the chance to face the family, he should drop to his knees and show how sorry he is by asking for forgiveness, and then spend the rest of his life giving back to the community he has hurt so deeply, actions speak louder than words.
Many families lose someone close and spend their life trying to make sense of it and wanting justice of some kind, this is something that does not always happen, sometimes you hear things happen to right that wrong, I for one, hope that Brown does in some way use his life to right this wrong doing.
To Nicci, you have wonderful family and friends who I am sure will never let your girls forget Joe, they will support you for the years to come and make sure Joe's memory lives on.
To the Eynsham community, do what you do best, look after your own.Mr Hope

Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. So the problem is the cyclist and not the moron sat inside the car eating his sandwich???

Let me rewrite your post for you, this time with "brain" set to ON.

I do feel this highlights the stupidity of people who are unaware of the damage they are capable of inflicting with their cars, which become lethal weapons at speed. We desperately need to get the message through to motorists that they should have their attention placed on the road ahead at all times. Some motorists are a danger to themselves and everybody else, including their passengers, pedestrians and other motorists. Instead of concentrating they are chatting on their mobile phones, sending texts, playing with their satnav or astonishingly, eating their dinner. Cyclists, on the other hand, have no such distractions and cycling presents a simple solution to severe modern-day problems such as obesity, transport congestion, the energy crisis and CO2 emissions. Bike clubs which teach safe riding and encourage the adoption of cycling should be applauded. Given that many motorists are too stupid to ever heed warnings over safe driving, it is imperative that the government increases their spending on cycle paths to protect innocent people from careless and dangerous driving.

Finally a side note about pairs of cyclists riding side by side. I have recently taken up cycling, and riding with a friend along quiet country roads of a summers evening is a joy of which I was previously unaware. When I am on the "outside" of a pair I make constant checks behind to see if a vehicle is approaching, and move in front of my friend immediately. The majority of motorists seem fine with this, and pass us at a safe speed and a safe distance. There are the odd one of course who feel the need to beep their horn and rudely gesticulate if their closing speed is so high that it takes me by surprise. The fact that they are usually breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit is of no importance to them.

Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. So the problem is the cyclist and not the moron sat inside the car eating his sandwich???
Let me rewrite your post for you, this time with "brain" set to ON.
I do feel this highlights the stupidity of people who are unaware of the damage they are capable of inflicting with their cars, which become lethal weapons at speed. We desperately need to get the message through to motorists that they should have their attention placed on the road ahead at all times. Some motorists are a danger to themselves and everybody else, including their passengers, pedestrians and other motorists. Instead of concentrating they are chatting on their mobile phones, sending texts, playing with their satnav or astonishingly, eating their dinner. Cyclists, on the other hand, have no such distractions and cycling presents a simple solution to severe modern-day problems such as obesity, transport congestion, the energy crisis and CO2 emissions. Bike clubs which teach safe riding and encourage the adoption of cycling should be applauded. Given that many motorists are too stupid to ever heed warnings over safe driving, it is imperative that the government increases their spending on cycle paths to protect innocent people from careless and dangerous driving.
Finally a side note about pairs of cyclists riding side by side. I have recently taken up cycling, and riding with a friend along quiet country roads of a summers evening is a joy of which I was previously unaware. When I am on the "outside" of a pair I make constant checks behind to see if a vehicle is approaching, and move in front of my friend immediately. The majority of motorists seem fine with this, and pass us at a safe speed and a safe distance. There are the odd one of course who feel the need to beep their horn and rudely gesticulate if their closing speed is so high that it takes me by surprise. The fact that they are usually breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit is of no importance to them.Sid Snakey

My brain is fine thank you Sid. Yes cyclist should always make way for cars we pay tax you don't, we don't jump lights like so many cyclists do, we don't drive around without lights like so many cyclists do, and many cyclistt choose not to use cycle labnes that have been so expensively constructed fror your own safety. No I would ban all bikes (and horses) from roads. And Sid you're the one that needs a brain if you think that you can survive an accident with a car or lorry... cycling is the madest 'hobby' on the roads certainly all 'sports cycling should be banned right now!

My brain is fine thank you Sid. Yes cyclist should always make way for cars we pay tax you don't, we don't jump lights like so many cyclists do, we don't drive around without lights like so many cyclists do, and many cyclistt choose not to use cycle labnes that have been so expensively constructed fror your own safety. No I would ban all bikes (and horses) from roads. And Sid you're the one that needs a brain if you think that you can survive an accident with a car or lorry... cycling is the madest 'hobby' on the roads certainly all 'sports cycling should be banned right now!bodchris

bodchris wrote:
My brain is fine thank you Sid. Yes cyclist should always make way for cars we pay tax you don't, we don't jump lights like so many cyclists do, we don't drive around without lights like so many cyclists do, and many cyclistt choose not to use cycle labnes that have been so expensively constructed fror your own safety. No I would ban all bikes (and horses) from roads. And Sid you're the one that needs a brain if you think that you can survive an accident with a car or lorry... cycling is the madest 'hobby' on the roads certainly all 'sports cycling should be banned right now!

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
My brain is fine thank you Sid. Yes cyclist should always make way for cars we pay tax you don't, we don't jump lights like so many cyclists do, we don't drive around without lights like so many cyclists do, and many cyclistt choose not to use cycle labnes that have been so expensively constructed fror your own safety. No I would ban all bikes (and horses) from roads. And Sid you're the one that needs a brain if you think that you can survive an accident with a car or lorry... cycling is the madest 'hobby' on the roads certainly all 'sports cycling should be banned right now![/p][/quote]Idiot. Your views, misinformation, spelling, grammar and punctuation prove it.grandconjuration

Jochta, you miss the pojnt, no cyclist on the road no cyclist deaths. Holland/Netherlands is great cars and bikes don't mix. When cars and bikes mix cyclist get killed. Lobby your MP for more cycle lanes (and make it law that cyclist HAVE to use them)

Jochta, you miss the pojnt, no cyclist on the road no cyclist deaths. Holland/Netherlands is great cars and bikes don't mix. When cars and bikes mix cyclist get killed. Lobby your MP for more cycle lanes (and make it law that cyclist HAVE to use them)bodchris

grandconjuration you show the arrogance of most of the be-helmeted, lycra wearing road blocking cycling yobs that shout at the top of their voices as they go past my house and disturbing my peace. For your info I am a UCL graduate and Oxford post-grad.

grandconjuration you show the arrogance of most of the be-helmeted, lycra wearing road blocking cycling yobs that shout at the top of their voices as they go past my house and disturbing my peace. For your info I am a UCL graduate and Oxford post-grad.bodchris

bodchris, if you seriously are stupid enough to think that cyclists don't pay tax, and you have chosen to hijack an innocent man's death to spout your prejudice, then I'm afraid you really are too stupid to reason with.

bodchris, if you seriously are stupid enough to think that cyclists don't pay tax, and you have chosen to hijack an innocent man's death to spout your prejudice, then I'm afraid you really are too stupid to reason with.Stevo98

No Stevo98 cyclists do not pay any tax related to their road use, nor are they required to submit their vehicle for mechanical testing, and they do sit any kind of road test prior to setting their rickerty contraptions on the road. I am sure cycling is very pleasent and even healthy when carried out in moderation, however in the 21st century why we allow bikes and horses on our roads is beyond me. What next, skate boards??? If you cyclists cannot see the dangers you submit yourselves to then it is you that are stupid, not me. I have not hijacked this forum, I am hear to point out the obvious: if he was on a cycle lane he would be alive today. We need cycle lanes and we need them now and until we get them there will be more dead and injured.

No Stevo98 cyclists do not pay any tax related to their road use, nor are they required to submit their vehicle for mechanical testing, and they do sit any kind of road test prior to setting their rickerty contraptions on the road. I am sure cycling is very pleasent and even healthy when carried out in moderation, however in the 21st century why we allow bikes and horses on our roads is beyond me. What next, skate boards??? If you cyclists cannot see the dangers you submit yourselves to then it is you that are stupid, not me. I have not hijacked this forum, I am hear to point out the obvious: if he was on a cycle lane he would be alive today. We need cycle lanes and we need them now and until we get them there will be more dead and injured.bodchris

bodchris wrote:
grandconjuration you show the arrogance of most of the be-helmeted, lycra wearing road blocking cycling yobs that shout at the top of their voices as they go past my house and disturbing my peace. For your info I am a UCL graduate and Oxford post-grad.

In that case, you are a rather sad reflection of the poor standard of education in this country. Good luck finding a job.

Allow me to challenge a few of your 'arguments'.

"Cyclists currently are a danger to themselves and everybody else"". In the majority of cases involving a collision between a motor vehicle and cyclist, the motorist is found to wholly be at fault. Cyclists very rarely harm anybody else. Statistics can easily be found on the web.

"They hold up traffic and impede car and lorry drivers by their slow speed". Bicycles are traffic, they do not hold it up. They do not impede cars and lorries; the vast majority of slow-moving traffic is caused by motor vehicles. Remember, one more bicycle is one less car.

"Bike club outings where 10-50 cyclist (sic) ride together should be totally banned as should pairs of cyclists riding side-by-side". Why? They have every right to be on the road. Should we also ban groups of 10-50 cars? Bicycles two abreast take up less space per person than a single occupant car.

"Yes cyclist (sic) should always make way for cars we pay tax you don't". I'm not sure where to start with this one and it sums your attitude up quite succinctly. Let's keep it simple for your tiny allegedly educated brain. Cyclists should not 'make way' for cars; ownership of a motor vehicle does not give you any enhanced rights on public roads. Indeed, cyclists have a right to be on the road, motorists do not, they can only use roads under license and upon the fulfilment of other conditions. Cyclists do pay tax. I cycle sometimes, and I bet I pay more tax than you.

"We don't jump lights like so many cyclists do". Rubbish.

"Many cyclistt (sic) choose not to use cycle labnes (sic). There is no legal requirement to use a cycle lane. They are often of poor design. There is also a legal precedence in the UK for riding on the road when a speed of over 17mph can be maintained as this is deemed too fast for many cycle lanes, especially those that are shared use. Have I mentioned above that cyclists have every right to use the road?

As far as banning cycling. Maybe one day, all cyclists should drive instead of cycle; watch the gridlock. Maybe you should read up on the economics of cycling, the net amount of worth that it brings to this country, the thriving UK cycling industry, the signicant savings it brings to the NHS...

I look forward to a reply, I like to watch someone make a complete idiot of themselves. Since you're a post-grad, maybe you could research a theory I have. My theory is that people who make anti-cycling comments have a tendency to be poorly educated, have a poor grasp of written English and are unable to put together a convincing argument due to substandard intelligence. As a result they are bitter, have poor prospects and the car they worship so much is worth no more than about two hundred quid.

For the record, I cycle occasionally and am not anti-car; I have a very nice car (for which I pay a lot of tax). I am anti-idiot.

My condolences to the family involved. The sentence is pitiful. I have a young family and I fear that one day it could be me. But I'm not going to let idiots (and I would prefer to use stronger language here) like bodchris put me off from doing something that I enjoy so much.

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
grandconjuration you show the arrogance of most of the be-helmeted, lycra wearing road blocking cycling yobs that shout at the top of their voices as they go past my house and disturbing my peace. For your info I am a UCL graduate and Oxford post-grad.[/p][/quote]In that case, you are a rather sad reflection of the poor standard of education in this country. Good luck finding a job.
Allow me to challenge a few of your 'arguments'.
"Cyclists currently are a danger to themselves and everybody else"". In the majority of cases involving a collision between a motor vehicle and cyclist, the motorist is found to wholly be at fault. Cyclists very rarely harm anybody else. Statistics can easily be found on the web.
"They hold up traffic and impede car and lorry drivers by their slow speed". Bicycles are traffic, they do not hold it up. They do not impede cars and lorries; the vast majority of slow-moving traffic is caused by motor vehicles. Remember, one more bicycle is one less car.
"Bike club outings where 10-50 cyclist (sic) ride together should be totally banned as should pairs of cyclists riding side-by-side". Why? They have every right to be on the road. Should we also ban groups of 10-50 cars? Bicycles two abreast take up less space per person than a single occupant car.
"Yes cyclist (sic) should always make way for cars we pay tax you don't". I'm not sure where to start with this one and it sums your attitude up quite succinctly. Let's keep it simple for your tiny allegedly educated brain. Cyclists should not 'make way' for cars; ownership of a motor vehicle does not give you any enhanced rights on public roads. Indeed, cyclists have a right to be on the road, motorists do not, they can only use roads under license and upon the fulfilment of other conditions. Cyclists do pay tax. I cycle sometimes, and I bet I pay more tax than you.
"We don't jump lights like so many cyclists do". Rubbish.
"Many cyclistt (sic) choose not to use cycle labnes (sic). There is no legal requirement to use a cycle lane. They are often of poor design. There is also a legal precedence in the UK for riding on the road when a speed of over 17mph can be maintained as this is deemed too fast for many cycle lanes, especially those that are shared use. Have I mentioned above that cyclists have every right to use the road?
As far as banning cycling. Maybe one day, all cyclists should drive instead of cycle; watch the gridlock. Maybe you should read up on the economics of cycling, the net amount of worth that it brings to this country, the thriving UK cycling industry, the signicant savings it brings to the NHS...
I look forward to a reply, I like to watch someone make a complete idiot of themselves. Since you're a post-grad, maybe you could research a theory I have. My theory is that people who make anti-cycling comments have a tendency to be poorly educated, have a poor grasp of written English and are unable to put together a convincing argument due to substandard intelligence. As a result they are bitter, have poor prospects and the car they worship so much is worth no more than about two hundred quid.
For the record, I cycle occasionally and am not anti-car; I have a very nice car (for which I pay a lot of tax). I am anti-idiot.
My condolences to the family involved. The sentence is pitiful. I have a young family and I fear that one day it could be me. But I'm not going to let idiots (and I would prefer to use stronger language here) like bodchris put me off from doing something that I enjoy so much.grandconjuration

If he was truly sorry he would have admitted to dangerous driving, not argued the finer points in court. Crocodile tears should increase the sentence given, for being too pathetic to face the crime you committed.

He is scum.

If he was truly sorry he would have admitted to dangerous driving, not argued the finer points in court. Crocodile tears should increase the sentence given, for being too pathetic to face the crime you committed.
He is scum.SamSpinx

grandconjuration Sadly even though I am well educated, own my own company and am by most standards well off I am a dyslexic which explains my poor grasp of our language. I forgive your ignorance.

The point I am trying to make is this: all cyclists are vulnerable and it's dangerous for you to be on the road. You are it seems, as most of the other commentators here, a dyed-in-the-wool cyclist with a very entrenched attitude, I simply mean to challenge your views. Cycling is inherrently dangerous and until such time as you have your own cycle lanes there will be unfortunate accidents like the one above. Get wise to the prospects of a sad death like this man, If the guy in the car had hit another car then there was the possibility of a fatality and injury but as he hit a cyclist then the only possible outcome at this speed was death for the cyclists. The reality is that you are flesh and the car or lorry many tonnes of metal. Anybody who rides a bike is totally crazy. I have banned my children from riding a bike as it's too dangerous and believe that parents that allow teir children to cycle on the road ought to be charge with manslaughter if one of their children is run over. We need universal cycle lanes like they have in Holland, and have safety for drivers and cyclists with little conflict.

grandconjuration Sadly even though I am well educated, own my own company and am by most standards well off I am a dyslexic which explains my poor grasp of our language. I forgive your ignorance.
The point I am trying to make is this: all cyclists are vulnerable and it's dangerous for you to be on the road. You are it seems, as most of the other commentators here, a dyed-in-the-wool cyclist with a very entrenched attitude, I simply mean to challenge your views. Cycling is inherrently dangerous and until such time as you have your own cycle lanes there will be unfortunate accidents like the one above. Get wise to the prospects of a sad death like this man, If the guy in the car had hit another car then there was the possibility of a fatality and injury but as he hit a cyclist then the only possible outcome at this speed was death for the cyclists. The reality is that you are flesh and the car or lorry many tonnes of metal. Anybody who rides a bike is totally crazy. I have banned my children from riding a bike as it's too dangerous and believe that parents that allow teir children to cycle on the road ought to be charge with manslaughter if one of their children is run over. We need universal cycle lanes like they have in Holland, and have safety for drivers and cyclists with little conflict.bodchris

Stevo98 And you haven't eaten or drunk anything when you cycle? I've seen cyclists reading books, using mobiles even texting as they ride..... Yes it's awful about his orphaned children, awful that he leaves a widow, but the lesson that you cyclist should take from this is that it's dangerous to ride a bike, you are vulnerable and it's time for cycle lanes to remove you from roads. You should be lobbying your MP as I do for action on cycle lanes.

Stevo98 And you haven't eaten or drunk anything when you cycle? I've seen cyclists reading books, using mobiles even texting as they ride..... Yes it's awful about his orphaned children, awful that he leaves a widow, but the lesson that you cyclist should take from this is that it's dangerous to ride a bike, you are vulnerable and it's time for cycle lanes to remove you from roads. You should be lobbying your MP as I do for action on cycle lanes.bodchris

bodchris wrote:
grandconjuration Sadly even though I am well educated, own my own company and am by most standards well off I am a dyslexic which explains my poor grasp of our language. I forgive your ignorance.

The point I am trying to make is this: all cyclists are vulnerable and it's dangerous for you to be on the road. You are it seems, as most of the other commentators here, a dyed-in-the-wool cyclist with a very entrenched attitude, I simply mean to challenge your views. Cycling is inherrently dangerous and until such time as you have your own cycle lanes there will be unfortunate accidents like the one above. Get wise to the prospects of a sad death like this man, If the guy in the car had hit another car then there was the possibility of a fatality and injury but as he hit a cyclist then the only possible outcome at this speed was death for the cyclists. The reality is that you are flesh and the car or lorry many tonnes of metal. Anybody who rides a bike is totally crazy. I have banned my children from riding a bike as it's too dangerous and believe that parents that allow teir children to cycle on the road ought to be charge with manslaughter if one of their children is run over. We need universal cycle lanes like they have in Holland, and have safety for drivers and cyclists with little conflict.

Obvious troll is obvious but just in case you really are a genuine and ignorant person...

Get the stats for how many motorists (and passengers) are killed by themselves or by fellow motorists each year in this country and compare that with the number of cyclists killed. You will very quickly see which is the more dangerous form of transport (hint :- it isn't riding a bike). Maybe you would be better off letting your children cycle with all the health benefits it brings rather than face the risks of being a passenger in a car.

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
grandconjuration Sadly even though I am well educated, own my own company and am by most standards well off I am a dyslexic which explains my poor grasp of our language. I forgive your ignorance.
The point I am trying to make is this: all cyclists are vulnerable and it's dangerous for you to be on the road. You are it seems, as most of the other commentators here, a dyed-in-the-wool cyclist with a very entrenched attitude, I simply mean to challenge your views. Cycling is inherrently dangerous and until such time as you have your own cycle lanes there will be unfortunate accidents like the one above. Get wise to the prospects of a sad death like this man, If the guy in the car had hit another car then there was the possibility of a fatality and injury but as he hit a cyclist then the only possible outcome at this speed was death for the cyclists. The reality is that you are flesh and the car or lorry many tonnes of metal. Anybody who rides a bike is totally crazy. I have banned my children from riding a bike as it's too dangerous and believe that parents that allow teir children to cycle on the road ought to be charge with manslaughter if one of their children is run over. We need universal cycle lanes like they have in Holland, and have safety for drivers and cyclists with little conflict.[/p][/quote]Obvious troll is obvious but just in case you really are a genuine and ignorant person...
Get the stats for how many motorists (and passengers) are killed by themselves or by fellow motorists each year in this country and compare that with the number of cyclists killed. You will very quickly see which is the more dangerous form of transport (hint :- it isn't riding a bike). Maybe you would be better off letting your children cycle with all the health benefits it brings rather than face the risks of being a passenger in a car.jochta

bodchris wrote:
grandconjuration Sadly even though I am well educated, own my own company and am by most standards well off I am a dyslexic which explains my poor grasp of our language. I forgive your ignorance.

The point I am trying to make is this: all cyclists are vulnerable and it's dangerous for you to be on the road. You are it seems, as most of the other commentators here, a dyed-in-the-wool cyclist with a very entrenched attitude, I simply mean to challenge your views. Cycling is inherrently dangerous and until such time as you have your own cycle lanes there will be unfortunate accidents like the one above. Get wise to the prospects of a sad death like this man, If the guy in the car had hit another car then there was the possibility of a fatality and injury but as he hit a cyclist then the only possible outcome at this speed was death for the cyclists. The reality is that you are flesh and the car or lorry many tonnes of metal. Anybody who rides a bike is totally crazy. I have banned my children from riding a bike as it's too dangerous and believe that parents that allow teir children to cycle on the road ought to be charge with manslaughter if one of their children is run over. We need universal cycle lanes like they have in Holland, and have safety for drivers and cyclists with little conflict.

I note that you have failed to make any argument against any of the points I made when challenging your views and misinformation.

Cyclists are vulnerable - agreed, as are pedestrians but I presume you don't want to ban walking. The Highway Code is very clear about how motorists should behave towards vulnerable road users.

Cycling is not inherently dangerous.

"Get wise to the prospects of a sad death". You're really not a nice person are you.

Better facilities for cyclists will always be welcome, providing they're properly designed. But this is not the only answer. The Netherlands is famously cycle friendly, but upon visiting, you will see that cycles and cars mix very well. Last year there were 0 cyclist deaths in Paris, which is an extremely busy city. It's down to attitudes, not just segregation. I'm afraid that in the UK we have far too many people with "get out my way", "I pay tax", "you deserve to die" attitudes like you.

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
grandconjuration Sadly even though I am well educated, own my own company and am by most standards well off I am a dyslexic which explains my poor grasp of our language. I forgive your ignorance.
The point I am trying to make is this: all cyclists are vulnerable and it's dangerous for you to be on the road. You are it seems, as most of the other commentators here, a dyed-in-the-wool cyclist with a very entrenched attitude, I simply mean to challenge your views. Cycling is inherrently dangerous and until such time as you have your own cycle lanes there will be unfortunate accidents like the one above. Get wise to the prospects of a sad death like this man, If the guy in the car had hit another car then there was the possibility of a fatality and injury but as he hit a cyclist then the only possible outcome at this speed was death for the cyclists. The reality is that you are flesh and the car or lorry many tonnes of metal. Anybody who rides a bike is totally crazy. I have banned my children from riding a bike as it's too dangerous and believe that parents that allow teir children to cycle on the road ought to be charge with manslaughter if one of their children is run over. We need universal cycle lanes like they have in Holland, and have safety for drivers and cyclists with little conflict.[/p][/quote]I note that you have failed to make any argument against any of the points I made when challenging your views and misinformation.
Cyclists are vulnerable - agreed, as are pedestrians but I presume you don't want to ban walking. The Highway Code is very clear about how motorists should behave towards vulnerable road users.
Cycling is not inherently dangerous.
"Get wise to the prospects of a sad death". You're really not a nice person are you.
Better facilities for cyclists will always be welcome, providing they're properly designed. But this is not the only answer. The Netherlands is famously cycle friendly, but upon visiting, you will see that cycles and cars mix very well. Last year there were 0 cyclist deaths in Paris, which is an extremely busy city. It's down to attitudes, not just segregation. I'm afraid that in the UK we have far too many people with "get out my way", "I pay tax", "you deserve to die" attitudes like you.grandconjuration

Cycloing is safer than walking. Cycling is much safer than driving for young males, young men are far morte likely to be killed driving than cycling.

Cycle ten miles a day and you'll enjoy fitness levels of someone ten years younger. Unless you're ten years old. The BMA estimate the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a factor of ten to one. More cyclists on the roads makes the roads safer for everyone, for instance a community that doubles its cycling rates can see accidents drop by a third. It makes sense when you think about it- drivers get used to cyclists and may even cycle themselves!

We need to tackle the danger, address what makes the roads dangerous, and that's drivers. It is drivers who cause the deaths and injuries and they hardly ever receive a proper punishment. BBC news today has several drivers with more than thirty points on their license still driving. How many chances do they get?

Cycloing is safer than walking. Cycling is much safer than driving for young males, young men are far morte likely to be killed driving than cycling.
Cycle ten miles a day and you'll enjoy fitness levels of someone ten years younger. Unless you're ten years old. The BMA estimate the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a factor of ten to one. More cyclists on the roads makes the roads safer for everyone, for instance a community that doubles its cycling rates can see accidents drop by a third. It makes sense when you think about it- drivers get used to cyclists and may even cycle themselves!
We need to tackle the danger, address what makes the roads dangerous, and that's drivers. It is drivers who cause the deaths and injuries and they hardly ever receive a proper punishment. BBC news today has several drivers with more than thirty points on their license still driving. How many chances do they get?Stevo98

bodchris wrote:
Stevo98 And you haven't eaten or drunk anything when you cycle? I've seen cyclists reading books, using mobiles even texting as they ride..... Yes it's awful about his orphaned children, awful that he leaves a widow, but the lesson that you cyclist should take from this is that it's dangerous to ride a bike, you are vulnerable and it's time for cycle lanes to remove you from roads. You should be lobbying your MP as I do for action on cycle lanes.

I'm 13 stone, my bike's twenty pounds, I ride at an average 13mph. That's palpably not the same as a tone of steel doing 60mph. I don't believe you've seen a cyclist reading a book whilst riding. Joe Wilkins was not married, he laves a bereaved partner, not widow, you could at leats have read the story before commenting. And before you start writing to your MP you should do some reading-cycle lanes are more dangerous for cyclists than the road is. Cycle lanes often contain broken glass, pedestrians, lamp posts, hidden exits, driveways, phone boxes. Do some research before commenting, you are coming across as very uninformed on this issue and you clearly haven't read the article properly.

The woman is Isleworth with 42 points on her license is still driving around. This makes no sense, how many chances should she get?

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
Stevo98 And you haven't eaten or drunk anything when you cycle? I've seen cyclists reading books, using mobiles even texting as they ride..... Yes it's awful about his orphaned children, awful that he leaves a widow, but the lesson that you cyclist should take from this is that it's dangerous to ride a bike, you are vulnerable and it's time for cycle lanes to remove you from roads. You should be lobbying your MP as I do for action on cycle lanes.[/p][/quote]I'm 13 stone, my bike's twenty pounds, I ride at an average 13mph. That's palpably not the same as a tone of steel doing 60mph. I don't believe you've seen a cyclist reading a book whilst riding. Joe Wilkins was not married, he laves a bereaved partner, not widow, you could at leats have read the story before commenting. And before you start writing to your MP you should do some reading-cycle lanes are more dangerous for cyclists than the road is. Cycle lanes often contain broken glass, pedestrians, lamp posts, hidden exits, driveways, phone boxes. Do some research before commenting, you are coming across as very uninformed on this issue and you clearly haven't read the article properly.
The woman is Isleworth with 42 points on her license is still driving around. This makes no sense, how many chances should she get?Stevo98

Perhaps if the cyclist had bothered to put lights or reflectors on his bike before riding on a country lane at 9pm he would likely still be alive today.

However good and considerate a driver may be, if the driver can't see a pedestrian/cyclist on the road then they have little time to try to avoid them.

We all need to be responsible for our own safety to a certain extent, if cycling keep left and wear bright clothing and always have lights at night so drivers have a fair chance to see you.

Had it been a two car 9pm accident on a country lane and one car had no lights on then who would be judged to be at fault for the collision? My guess is the road user with no lights would be to blame!

Perhaps if the cyclist had bothered to put lights or reflectors on his bike before riding on a country lane at 9pm he would likely still be alive today.
However good and considerate a driver may be, if the driver can't see a pedestrian/cyclist on the road then they have little time to try to avoid them.
We all need to be responsible for our own safety to a certain extent, if cycling keep left and wear bright clothing and always have lights at night so drivers have a fair chance to see you.
Had it been a two car 9pm accident on a country lane and one car had no lights on then who would be judged to be at fault for the collision? My guess is the road user with no lights would be to blame!AngelB

I disagree with a lot of this. Driver was not drunk, not exceeding speed limit, not doing dangerous maneouvres. Its legal to drive while using one hand to fiddle with the radio or satnav, I dont see why it is more dangerous to use on hand to lift a piece of food to your mouth. You dont use your eyes to eat!

People die by accident all the time, doesnt mean someone was at fault

State of mind of commenters is revealed by suggesting that driver must have been faking it to weep in witness box. Killing someone while driving is traumatic and can be devastating whether or not it was your fault

There is too much delight in condemning here. Sad aspect of our times. Your life is dull and unsatisfying but if for one moment you can righteously condemn another you get a little thrill....

All untimely deaths leave terrible grief behind, but research shows that when the survivors become consumed with desire for revenge aka 'justice', they do worse long term

I disagree with a lot of this. Driver was not drunk, not exceeding speed limit, not doing dangerous maneouvres. Its legal to drive while using one hand to fiddle with the radio or satnav, I dont see why it is more dangerous to use on hand to lift a piece of food to your mouth. You dont use your eyes to eat!
People die by accident all the time, doesnt mean someone was at fault
State of mind of commenters is revealed by suggesting that driver must have been faking it to weep in witness box. Killing someone while driving is traumatic and can be devastating whether or not it was your fault
There is too much delight in condemning here. Sad aspect of our times. Your life is dull and unsatisfying but if for one moment you can righteously condemn another you get a little thrill....
All untimely deaths leave terrible grief behind, but research shows that when the survivors become consumed with desire for revenge aka 'justice', they do worse long termSophia

bodchris wrote:
grandconjuration Sadly even though I am well educated, own my own company and am by most standards well off I am a dyslexic which explains my poor grasp of our language. I forgive your ignorance.

The point I am trying to make is this: all cyclists are vulnerable and it's dangerous for you to be on the road. You are it seems, as most of the other commentators here, a dyed-in-the-wool cyclist with a very entrenched attitude, I simply mean to challenge your views. Cycling is inherrently dangerous and until such time as you have your own cycle lanes there will be unfortunate accidents like the one above. Get wise to the prospects of a sad death like this man, If the guy in the car had hit another car then there was the possibility of a fatality and injury but as he hit a cyclist then the only possible outcome at this speed was death for the cyclists. The reality is that you are flesh and the car or lorry many tonnes of metal. Anybody who rides a bike is totally crazy. I have banned my children from riding a bike as it's too dangerous and believe that parents that allow teir children to cycle on the road ought to be charge with manslaughter if one of their children is run over. We need universal cycle lanes like they have in Holland, and have safety for drivers and cyclists with little conflict.

I struggle to believe that you actually mean what you say. I expect you are simply looking for attention so I'll not waste my time in pointing out the huge holes in your arguments. However there is one important thing that the other people replying to you have not mentioned.

Being dyslexic doesn't preclude you from being weak-minded.

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
grandconjuration Sadly even though I am well educated, own my own company and am by most standards well off I am a dyslexic which explains my poor grasp of our language. I forgive your ignorance.
The point I am trying to make is this: all cyclists are vulnerable and it's dangerous for you to be on the road. You are it seems, as most of the other commentators here, a dyed-in-the-wool cyclist with a very entrenched attitude, I simply mean to challenge your views. Cycling is inherrently dangerous and until such time as you have your own cycle lanes there will be unfortunate accidents like the one above. Get wise to the prospects of a sad death like this man, If the guy in the car had hit another car then there was the possibility of a fatality and injury but as he hit a cyclist then the only possible outcome at this speed was death for the cyclists. The reality is that you are flesh and the car or lorry many tonnes of metal. Anybody who rides a bike is totally crazy. I have banned my children from riding a bike as it's too dangerous and believe that parents that allow teir children to cycle on the road ought to be charge with manslaughter if one of their children is run over. We need universal cycle lanes like they have in Holland, and have safety for drivers and cyclists with little conflict.[/p][/quote]I struggle to believe that you actually mean what you say. I expect you are simply looking for attention so I'll not waste my time in pointing out the huge holes in your arguments. However there is one important thing that the other people replying to you have not mentioned.
Being dyslexic doesn't preclude you from being weak-minded.Floflo

I don't know where a lot of you learnt to drive, but I was taught that you drive to the road conditions, not just drive regardless of the consequences. That is to say, if you are on a big open, empty motorway on a clear evening, that is very different to a winding country lane just wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other. You do not know what is around the next corner, be it a tractor, a fast car on the wrong side of the road, or a cyclist. You should drive to the conditions and be ready to react to anyone else on the road, whether they are behaving or not, it is your responsisbility to avoid an accident.

And to some of the anti-cyclist brigade, please remember we don't want to be killed. I cycle because there's no parking where I work, and a bus would take 40min, where cycling takes 20min. I'm not "dyed-in-the-wool", it's a necessity. I have lights, all the reflectors I can buy, I cycle defensively. It terrifies me that some people think I do not have a right to be on the road, and drive accordingly. When I drive, I treat cyclists like every other road-user; give them enough space, be ready for them to do something stupid, because if they do and I hit them, it's my fault fot not leaving enough room. Drivers can be pretty stupid too, pulling out in front of me (I have a little car and Audis just love to pull out at the last second), racing through lights, cutting me up. But I give them room, I don't want an accident. Use your head, calm down, waiting behind a cyclist (or a slow car, or a car parking, or a pedestrian crossing) only adds a few seconds to your journey.

I don't know where a lot of you learnt to drive, but I was taught that you drive to the road conditions, not just drive regardless of the consequences. That is to say, if you are on a big open, empty motorway on a clear evening, that is very different to a winding country lane just wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other. You do not know what is around the next corner, be it a tractor, a fast car on the wrong side of the road, or a cyclist. You should drive to the conditions and be ready to react to anyone else on the road, whether they are behaving or not, it is your responsisbility to avoid an accident.
And to some of the anti-cyclist brigade, please remember we don't want to be killed. I cycle because there's no parking where I work, and a bus would take 40min, where cycling takes 20min. I'm not "dyed-in-the-wool", it's a necessity. I have lights, all the reflectors I can buy, I cycle defensively. It terrifies me that some people think I do not have a right to be on the road, and drive accordingly. When I drive, I treat cyclists like every other road-user; give them enough space, be ready for them to do something stupid, because if they do and I hit them, it's my fault fot not leaving enough room. Drivers can be pretty stupid too, pulling out in front of me (I have a little car and Audis just love to pull out at the last second), racing through lights, cutting me up. But I give them room, I don't want an accident. Use your head, calm down, waiting behind a cyclist (or a slow car, or a car parking, or a pedestrian crossing) only adds a few seconds to your journey.LouiseOxford

AngelB wrote:
Perhaps if the cyclist had bothered to put lights or reflectors on his bike before riding on a country lane at 9pm he would likely still be alive today.

However good and considerate a driver may be, if the driver can't see a pedestrian/cyclist on the road then they have little time to try to avoid them.

We all need to be responsible for our own safety to a certain extent, if cycling keep left and wear bright clothing and always have lights at night so drivers have a fair chance to see you.

Had it been a two car 9pm accident on a country lane and one car had no lights on then who would be judged to be at fault for the collision? My guess is the road user with no lights would be to blame!

The defendant earlier "told police he saw a cyclist’s reflective pedals a “split second” before impact."

In fact sunset in Oxford was at 9.05pm (8.59pm in London) which is after the approx. time of the accident (9pm).

Police vehicle examiner Phil Balderstone said the bike’s light had probably been on at the time of the crash but was faulty because it had been damaged. He could not be sure if the damage was caused before or after the crash.

Two statements from the defendant seem to be contradictory, at least to me
1) "Mr Brown sobbed while giving evidence and said: “I know I have ruined other people’s lives because of it and I’m truly sorry for that, but I just did not see him."

and

2)"The 30-year-old lock worker said he had his car lights on at the time of the crash (variously reported as 8:59pm to 9:15pm) but said that Mr Wilkins did not have lights on his bike."

If 1) is correct how can 2) be correct?

[quote][p][bold]AngelB[/bold] wrote:
Perhaps if the cyclist had bothered to put lights or reflectors on his bike before riding on a country lane at 9pm he would likely still be alive today.
However good and considerate a driver may be, if the driver can't see a pedestrian/cyclist on the road then they have little time to try to avoid them.
We all need to be responsible for our own safety to a certain extent, if cycling keep left and wear bright clothing and always have lights at night so drivers have a fair chance to see you.
Had it been a two car 9pm accident on a country lane and one car had no lights on then who would be judged to be at fault for the collision? My guess is the road user with no lights would be to blame![/p][/quote]The defendant earlier "told police he saw a cyclist’s reflective pedals a “split second” before impact."
In fact sunset in Oxford was at 9.05pm (8.59pm in London) which is after the approx. time of the accident (9pm).
Police vehicle examiner Phil Balderstone said the bike’s light had probably been on at the time of the crash but was faulty because it had been damaged. He could not be sure if the damage was caused before or after the crash.
http://road.cc/conte
nt/news/90037-driver
-who-killed-oxford-c
yclist-found-not-gui
lty-dangerous-drivin
g-guilty
Please don't post lies to slag off a dead man.
Also:
Two statements from the defendant seem to be contradictory, at least to me
1) "Mr Brown sobbed while giving evidence and said: “I know I have ruined other people’s lives because of it and I’m truly sorry for that, but I just did not see him."
and
2)"The 30-year-old lock worker said he had his car lights on at the time of the crash (variously reported as 8:59pm to 9:15pm) but said that Mr Wilkins did not have lights on his bike."
If 1) is correct how can 2) be correct?Stevo98

Sophia wrote:
I disagree with a lot of this. Driver was not drunk, not exceeding speed limit, not doing dangerous maneouvres. Its legal to drive while using one hand to fiddle with the radio or satnav, I dont see why it is more dangerous to use on hand to lift a piece of food to your mouth. You dont use your eyes to eat!

People die by accident all the time, doesnt mean someone was at fault

State of mind of commenters is revealed by suggesting that driver must have been faking it to weep in witness box. Killing someone while driving is traumatic and can be devastating whether or not it was your fault

There is too much delight in condemning here. Sad aspect of our times. Your life is dull and unsatisfying but if for one moment you can righteously condemn another you get a little thrill....

All untimely deaths leave terrible grief behind, but research shows that when the survivors become consumed with desire for revenge aka 'justice', they do worse long term

Try eating a sandwich on your driving test. Tell us how you get on.

That there are so many drivers who are too thick to understand that distracted driving is Dangerous Driving is staggering.

[quote][p][bold]Sophia[/bold] wrote:
I disagree with a lot of this. Driver was not drunk, not exceeding speed limit, not doing dangerous maneouvres. Its legal to drive while using one hand to fiddle with the radio or satnav, I dont see why it is more dangerous to use on hand to lift a piece of food to your mouth. You dont use your eyes to eat!
People die by accident all the time, doesnt mean someone was at fault
State of mind of commenters is revealed by suggesting that driver must have been faking it to weep in witness box. Killing someone while driving is traumatic and can be devastating whether or not it was your fault
There is too much delight in condemning here. Sad aspect of our times. Your life is dull and unsatisfying but if for one moment you can righteously condemn another you get a little thrill....
All untimely deaths leave terrible grief behind, but research shows that when the survivors become consumed with desire for revenge aka 'justice', they do worse long term[/p][/quote]Try eating a sandwich on your driving test. Tell us how you get on.
That there are so many drivers who are too thick to understand that distracted driving is Dangerous Driving is staggering.Stevo98

Stevo98 Not thick they are just being human. In the driving tt one must kep both hands on the wheel, but how many drivers do this when they have past their test? Him eating a sandwhich was irrelivant, what was relevant that he did not see the cyclist and this is the point you don't seem to grasp is that if a driver doesn't see you and he hits you, chances are that you are dead like our unfortunate man. This is why cycling is dangerous and why bikes must be removed from our roads. No amount of '4 wheels bad 2 wheels good' propaganda changes this basic fact. Frankly to save lives I would ban all bicycles from Oxford roads today.

Stevo98 Not thick they are just being human. In the driving tt one must kep both hands on the wheel, but how many drivers do this when they have past their test? Him eating a sandwhich was irrelivant, what was relevant that he did not see the cyclist and this is the point you don't seem to grasp is that if a driver doesn't see you and he hits you, chances are that you are dead like our unfortunate man. This is why cycling is dangerous and why bikes must be removed from our roads. No amount of '4 wheels bad 2 wheels good' propaganda changes this basic fact. Frankly to save lives I would ban all bicycles from Oxford roads today.bodchris

bodchris wrote:
Stevo98 Not thick they are just being human. In the driving tt one must kep both hands on the wheel, but how many drivers do this when they have past their test? Him eating a sandwhich was irrelivant, what was relevant that he did not see the cyclist and this is the point you don't seem to grasp is that if a driver doesn't see you and he hits you, chances are that you are dead like our unfortunate man. This is why cycling is dangerous and why bikes must be removed from our roads. No amount of '4 wheels bad 2 wheels good' propaganda changes this basic fact. Frankly to save lives I would ban all bicycles from Oxford roads today.

It's inconceivable that an *attentive* driver would not see a cyclist in front of them for at least 6.5s before impact on that road. Around the time of sunset in late May there is ample daylight to see any cyclist. It's basically full daylight still. At 9pm on 24th May 2012 Benson metsite reported 0% cloud cover, no precipitation and a temperature of 20C.

This is my big problem with this incident it just doesn't make any sense. That road is straight, wide enough for two cars to pass and has excellent visibility. It should never have happened, that it did makes me question what the driver was doing in those 6.5s.

PS to save MORE lives you should want to ban all motor vehicles from Oxford roads today.

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
Stevo98 Not thick they are just being human. In the driving tt one must kep both hands on the wheel, but how many drivers do this when they have past their test? Him eating a sandwhich was irrelivant, what was relevant that he did not see the cyclist and this is the point you don't seem to grasp is that if a driver doesn't see you and he hits you, chances are that you are dead like our unfortunate man. This is why cycling is dangerous and why bikes must be removed from our roads. No amount of '4 wheels bad 2 wheels good' propaganda changes this basic fact. Frankly to save lives I would ban all bicycles from Oxford roads today.[/p][/quote]It's inconceivable that an *attentive* driver would not see a cyclist in front of them for at least 6.5s before impact on that road. Around the time of sunset in late May there is ample daylight to see any cyclist. It's basically full daylight still. At 9pm on 24th May 2012 Benson metsite reported 0% cloud cover, no precipitation and a temperature of 20C.
This is my big problem with this incident it just doesn't make any sense. That road is straight, wide enough for two cars to pass and has excellent visibility. It should never have happened, that it did makes me question what the driver was doing in those 6.5s.
PS to save MORE lives you should want to ban all motor vehicles from Oxford roads today.jochta

Sophia wrote:
I disagree with a lot of this. Driver was not drunk, not exceeding speed limit, not doing dangerous maneouvres. Its legal to drive while using one hand to fiddle with the radio or satnav, I dont see why it is more dangerous to use on hand to lift a piece of food to your mouth. You dont use your eyes to eat!

People die by accident all the time, doesnt mean someone was at fault

State of mind of commenters is revealed by suggesting that driver must have been faking it to weep in witness box. Killing someone while driving is traumatic and can be devastating whether or not it was your fault

There is too much delight in condemning here. Sad aspect of our times. Your life is dull and unsatisfying but if for one moment you can righteously condemn another you get a little thrill....

All untimely deaths leave terrible grief behind, but research shows that when the survivors become consumed with desire for revenge aka 'justice', they do worse long term

Couldn't agree with you more. I find some of the comments on here wanting to "make an example" of this man actually a little frightening. If we end up in a society where you get jailed for making a mistake, however tragic, then we're a poorer place. Jail is for criminals.

And put as big a negative score on this as you like, there is clearly some pretty immature thinking amongst the Oxford brigade.

[quote][p][bold]Sophia[/bold] wrote:
I disagree with a lot of this. Driver was not drunk, not exceeding speed limit, not doing dangerous maneouvres. Its legal to drive while using one hand to fiddle with the radio or satnav, I dont see why it is more dangerous to use on hand to lift a piece of food to your mouth. You dont use your eyes to eat!
People die by accident all the time, doesnt mean someone was at fault
State of mind of commenters is revealed by suggesting that driver must have been faking it to weep in witness box. Killing someone while driving is traumatic and can be devastating whether or not it was your fault
There is too much delight in condemning here. Sad aspect of our times. Your life is dull and unsatisfying but if for one moment you can righteously condemn another you get a little thrill....
All untimely deaths leave terrible grief behind, but research shows that when the survivors become consumed with desire for revenge aka 'justice', they do worse long term[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree with you more. I find some of the comments on here wanting to "make an example" of this man actually a little frightening. If we end up in a society where you get jailed for making a mistake, however tragic, then we're a poorer place. Jail is for criminals.
And put as big a negative score on this as you like, there is clearly some pretty immature thinking amongst the Oxford brigade.scampbird

There are motorists out there who deliberately pass cyclists too closely. Just read bodchris's comments, he's saying any cyclist that gets hit "deserves" it. He's talking about kids on bikes. He's glorifying the deaths of children. Sending the selfish, arrogant cretin Paul Brown to prison would send a clear message out to these drivers:

"KILL A CYCLIST BY FAILING TO NOTICE THEM ON A CLEAR, OPEN ROAD AND YOU WILL GO TO PRISON"

The purpose of prison is not just to punish, it is also to act as a deterrent. Sending killer driver Paul Brown to prison, where he belongs, may well save lives.

There are motorists out there who deliberately pass cyclists too closely. Just read bodchris's comments, he's saying any cyclist that gets hit "deserves" it. He's talking about kids on bikes. He's glorifying the deaths of children. Sending the selfish, arrogant cretin Paul Brown to prison would send a clear message out to these drivers:
"KILL A CYCLIST BY FAILING TO NOTICE THEM ON A CLEAR, OPEN ROAD AND YOU WILL GO TO PRISON"
The purpose of prison is not just to punish, it is also to act as a deterrent. Sending killer driver Paul Brown to prison, where he belongs, may well save lives.Stevo98

Stevo98 wrote:
There are motorists out there who deliberately pass cyclists too closely. Just read bodchris's comments, he's saying any cyclist that gets hit &quot;deserves" it. He's talking about kids on bikes. He's glorifying the deaths of children. Sending the selfish, arrogant cretin Paul Brown to prison would send a clear message out to these drivers:

"KILL A CYCLIST BY FAILING TO NOTICE THEM ON A CLEAR, OPEN ROAD AND YOU WILL GO TO PRISON"

The purpose of prison is not just to punish, it is also to act as a deterrent. Sending killer driver Paul Brown to prison, where he belongs, may well save lives.

As far as I can tell, you're both idiots.

[quote][p][bold]Stevo98[/bold] wrote:
There are motorists out there who deliberately pass cyclists too closely. Just read bodchris's comments, he's saying any cyclist that gets hit "deserves" it. He's talking about kids on bikes. He's glorifying the deaths of children. Sending the selfish, arrogant cretin Paul Brown to prison would send a clear message out to these drivers:
"KILL A CYCLIST BY FAILING TO NOTICE THEM ON A CLEAR, OPEN ROAD AND YOU WILL GO TO PRISON"
The purpose of prison is not just to punish, it is also to act as a deterrent. Sending killer driver Paul Brown to prison, where he belongs, may well save lives.[/p][/quote]As far as I can tell, you're both idiots.scampbird

A hundred vehicles smashed into each other in The Isle of Sheppey today.

Not a cyclist in sight.

Two hundred people injured.

Drivers going too fast, too close to the vehicle in front and ignoring the weather conditions.

Want to blame that on cyclists?

Like I said, the CPS guidelines are perfectly clear:

According to CPS charging and prosecution guidance 'driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment' is considered dangerous driving.

The Highway Code also states that 'there is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times.'

Paul Brown was not in proper control of his vehicle. He failed to notice another road user and killed him. Paul Brown belongs in prison to reflect on his lethal stupidity.

A hundred vehicles smashed into each other in The Isle of Sheppey today.
Not a cyclist in sight.
Two hundred people injured.
Drivers going too fast, too close to the vehicle in front and ignoring the weather conditions.
Want to blame that on cyclists?
Like I said, the CPS guidelines are perfectly clear:
According to CPS charging and prosecution guidance 'driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment' is considered dangerous driving.
The Highway Code also states that 'there is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times.'
Paul Brown was not in proper control of his vehicle. He failed to notice another road user and killed him. Paul Brown belongs in prison to reflect on his lethal stupidity.Stevo98

Stevo98 wrote:
There are motorists out there who deliberately pass cyclists too closely. Just read bodchris's comments, he's saying any cyclist that gets hit &quot;deserves" it. He's talking about kids on bikes. He's glorifying the deaths of children. Sending the selfish, arrogant cretin Paul Brown to prison would send a clear message out to these drivers:

"KILL A CYCLIST BY FAILING TO NOTICE THEM ON A CLEAR, OPEN ROAD AND YOU WILL GO TO PRISON"

The purpose of prison is not just to punish, it is also to act as a deterrent. Sending killer driver Paul Brown to prison, where he belongs, may well save lives.

As far as I can tell, you're both idiots.

So, scampbird, if a cyclist collided with your mother, killing her, then offered the excuse:

"I was eating a sandwich"

you'd be content with the cyclist getting a sentence of 240 hours picking up litter?

[quote][p][bold]scampbird[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Stevo98[/bold] wrote:
There are motorists out there who deliberately pass cyclists too closely. Just read bodchris's comments, he's saying any cyclist that gets hit "deserves" it. He's talking about kids on bikes. He's glorifying the deaths of children. Sending the selfish, arrogant cretin Paul Brown to prison would send a clear message out to these drivers:
"KILL A CYCLIST BY FAILING TO NOTICE THEM ON A CLEAR, OPEN ROAD AND YOU WILL GO TO PRISON"
The purpose of prison is not just to punish, it is also to act as a deterrent. Sending killer driver Paul Brown to prison, where he belongs, may well save lives.[/p][/quote]As far as I can tell, you're both idiots.[/p][/quote]So, scampbird, if a cyclist collided with your mother, killing her, then offered the excuse:
"I was eating a sandwich"
you'd be content with the cyclist getting a sentence of 240 hours picking up litter?Stevo98

It's very difficult to argue with someone like 'bodchris'. It just ends up with the repetition of poorly thought out views with no factual basis or context. I'm still waiting for a well thought out rebuttal to my reply.

Here's another one; "why we allow bikes and horses on our roads is beyond me. What next, skate boards". Maybe it's because bikes and horses have been around for much longer than cars. Indeed, the majority of roads in Oxford were built for them, not cars. It is perfectly legal to use skateboards on roads (with the obvious exception of motorways), this is because roads are for people and not solely motor vehicles. If you disagree, please quote some legislature.

So 'Sophia' thinks it is "legal to drive while using one hand to fiddle with the radio or satnav". No, it is not Sophia.

Highway Code Rule 149. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. You MUST NOT use a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, when driving or when supervising a learner driver, except to call 999 or 112 in a genuine emergency when it is unsafe or impractical to stop. Never use a hand-held microphone when driving. Using hands-free equipment is also likely to distract your attention from the road. It is far safer not to use any telephone while you are driving or riding - find a safe place to stop first or use the voicemail facility and listen to messages later.
Laws RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 & CUR regs 104 & 110

Highway Code 150. There is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. Do not rely on driver assistance systems such as cruise control or lane departure warnings. They are available to assist but you should not reduce your concentration levels. Do not be distracted by maps or screen-based information (such as navigation or vehicle management systems) while driving or riding. If necessary find a safe place to stop.
Laws RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 & CUR reg 104

What happened in this incident was not a 'mistake' or an 'accident'. The driver made a choice to ignore the rules of the road and he was not in full control of his vehicle. His willful NEGLIGENCE resulted in someone's death. The sentence should reflect this and he should never be given the privilege of being allowed to drive a motor vehicle again.

It's very difficult to argue with someone like 'bodchris'. It just ends up with the repetition of poorly thought out views with no factual basis or context. I'm still waiting for a well thought out rebuttal to my reply.
Here's another one; "why we allow bikes and horses on our roads is beyond me. What next, skate boards". Maybe it's because bikes and horses have been around for much longer than cars. Indeed, the majority of roads in Oxford were built for them, not cars. It is perfectly legal to use skateboards on roads (with the obvious exception of motorways), this is because roads are for people and not solely motor vehicles. If you disagree, please quote some legislature.
So 'Sophia' thinks it is "legal to drive while using one hand to fiddle with the radio or satnav". No, it is not Sophia.
Highway Code Rule 149. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. You MUST NOT use a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, when driving or when supervising a learner driver, except to call 999 or 112 in a genuine emergency when it is unsafe or impractical to stop. Never use a hand-held microphone when driving. Using hands-free equipment is also likely to distract your attention from the road. It is far safer not to use any telephone while you are driving or riding - find a safe place to stop first or use the voicemail facility and listen to messages later.
Laws RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 & CUR regs 104 & 110
Highway Code 150. There is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. Do not rely on driver assistance systems such as cruise control or lane departure warnings. They are available to assist but you should not reduce your concentration levels. Do not be distracted by maps or screen-based information (such as navigation or vehicle management systems) while driving or riding. If necessary find a safe place to stop.
Laws RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 & CUR reg 104
What happened in this incident was not a 'mistake' or an 'accident'. The driver made a choice to ignore the rules of the road and he was not in full control of his vehicle. His willful NEGLIGENCE resulted in someone's death. The sentence should reflect this and he should never be given the privilege of being allowed to drive a motor vehicle again.grandconjuration

bodchris wrote:
Stevo98 Not thick they are just being human. In the driving tt one must kep both hands on the wheel, but how many drivers do this when they have past their test? Him eating a sandwhich was irrelivant, what was relevant that he did not see the cyclist and this is the point you don't seem to grasp is that if a driver doesn't see you and he hits you, chances are that you are dead like our unfortunate man. This is why cycling is dangerous and why bikes must be removed from our roads. No amount of '4 wheels bad 2 wheels good' propaganda changes this basic fact. Frankly to save lives I would ban all bicycles from Oxford roads today.

It's inconceivable that an *attentive* driver would not see a cyclist in front of them for at least 6.5s before impact on that road. Around the time of sunset in late May there is ample daylight to see any cyclist. It's basically full daylight still. At 9pm on 24th May 2012 Benson metsite reported 0% cloud cover, no precipitation and a temperature of 20C.

This is my big problem with this incident it just doesn't make any sense. That road is straight, wide enough for two cars to pass and has excellent visibility. It should never have happened, that it did makes me question what the driver was doing in those 6.5s.

PS to save MORE lives you should want to ban all motor vehicles from Oxford roads today.

Exactly.

Could that sandwich not have waited til he got to his destination?

My driving teacher taught me that even a slow speed like 30mph is 44 feet per second, so even 2 seconds inattention at 30mph means you travel 88 feet before reactions, brakes etc kick in. To take your eyes off the road to eat a sandwich is disgustingly reckless and idiotic and this sentence is far too lenient.

[quote][p][bold]jochta[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
Stevo98 Not thick they are just being human. In the driving tt one must kep both hands on the wheel, but how many drivers do this when they have past their test? Him eating a sandwhich was irrelivant, what was relevant that he did not see the cyclist and this is the point you don't seem to grasp is that if a driver doesn't see you and he hits you, chances are that you are dead like our unfortunate man. This is why cycling is dangerous and why bikes must be removed from our roads. No amount of '4 wheels bad 2 wheels good' propaganda changes this basic fact. Frankly to save lives I would ban all bicycles from Oxford roads today.[/p][/quote]It's inconceivable that an *attentive* driver would not see a cyclist in front of them for at least 6.5s before impact on that road. Around the time of sunset in late May there is ample daylight to see any cyclist. It's basically full daylight still. At 9pm on 24th May 2012 Benson metsite reported 0% cloud cover, no precipitation and a temperature of 20C.
This is my big problem with this incident it just doesn't make any sense. That road is straight, wide enough for two cars to pass and has excellent visibility. It should never have happened, that it did makes me question what the driver was doing in those 6.5s.
PS to save MORE lives you should want to ban all motor vehicles from Oxford roads today.[/p][/quote]Exactly.
Could that sandwich not have waited til he got to his destination?
My driving teacher taught me that even a slow speed like 30mph is 44 feet per second, so even 2 seconds inattention at 30mph means you travel 88 feet before reactions, brakes etc kick in. To take your eyes off the road to eat a sandwich is disgustingly reckless and idiotic and this sentence is far too lenient.Stevo98

Stevo98 wrote:
A hundred vehicles smashed into each other in The Isle of Sheppey today.

Not a cyclist in sight.

Two hundred people injured.

Drivers going too fast, too close to the vehicle in front and ignoring the weather conditions.

Want to blame that on cyclists?

Like I said, the CPS guidelines are perfectly clear:

According to CPS charging and prosecution guidance 'driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment' is considered dangerous driving.

The Highway Code also states that 'there is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times.'

Paul Brown was not in proper control of his vehicle. He failed to notice another road user and killed him. Paul Brown belongs in prison to reflect on his lethal stupidity.

Oh my! Were they wearing helmets? What they need is tax, insurance, some kind of test. That will stop this kind of thing from happening.

[quote][p][bold]Stevo98[/bold] wrote:
A hundred vehicles smashed into each other in The Isle of Sheppey today.
Not a cyclist in sight.
Two hundred people injured.
Drivers going too fast, too close to the vehicle in front and ignoring the weather conditions.
Want to blame that on cyclists?
Like I said, the CPS guidelines are perfectly clear:
According to CPS charging and prosecution guidance 'driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment' is considered dangerous driving.
The Highway Code also states that 'there is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times.'
Paul Brown was not in proper control of his vehicle. He failed to notice another road user and killed him. Paul Brown belongs in prison to reflect on his lethal stupidity.[/p][/quote]Oh my! Were they wearing helmets? What they need is tax, insurance, some kind of test. That will stop this kind of thing from happening.Floflo

grandconjuration What an arrogant post! My views have as much validity and are as sincerely held as yours. They are not poorly thought out, they are just the opposite to yours and I totally refute they are not actual. Perhaps if you stopped insulting people here you might just see my point of view.
An example of a comment of yours that smacks of your own arrogance is that: 'Maybe it's because bikes and horses have been around for much longer than cars.' that does not necessarily mean that they should continue, I don't recall that steam engines are still used commercial rather they are in museums and kept off the main line, I consider that bikes and horse are a similar anachronism. Roads ought to be for the sole use of cars and other motor vehicles bikes are an outdated form of transport. If you want exercise, I suggest you buy an exercise bike and hook up to google maps if you want a view. Take an alternative exercises and keep our roads safer. My last word on this topic as you will not persuade me and I not you. My sincere hope is that neither you or your other cycling brethren come to harm whilst indulging your dangerous hobby but I fear that some will.

grandconjuration What an arrogant post! My views have as much validity and are as sincerely held as yours. They are not poorly thought out, they are just the opposite to yours and I totally refute they are not actual. Perhaps if you stopped insulting people here you might just see my point of view.
An example of a comment of yours that smacks of your own arrogance is that: 'Maybe it's because bikes and horses have been around for much longer than cars.' that does not necessarily mean that they should continue, I don't recall that steam engines are still used commercial rather they are in museums and kept off the main line, I consider that bikes and horse are a similar anachronism. Roads ought to be for the sole use of cars and other motor vehicles bikes are an outdated form of transport. If you want exercise, I suggest you buy an exercise bike and hook up to google maps if you want a view. Take an alternative exercises and keep our roads safer. My last word on this topic as you will not persuade me and I not you. My sincere hope is that neither you or your other cycling brethren come to harm whilst indulging your dangerous hobby but I fear that some will.bodchris

bodchris wrote:
grandconjuration What an arrogant post! My views have as much validity and are as sincerely held as yours. They are not poorly thought out, they are just the opposite to yours and I totally refute they are not actual. Perhaps if you stopped insulting people here you might just see my point of view.
An example of a comment of yours that smacks of your own arrogance is that: 'Maybe it's because bikes and horses have been around for much longer than cars.' that does not necessarily mean that they should continue, I don't recall that steam engines are still used commercial rather they are in museums and kept off the main line, I consider that bikes and horse are a similar anachronism. Roads ought to be for the sole use of cars and other motor vehicles bikes are an outdated form of transport. If you want exercise, I suggest you buy an exercise bike and hook up to google maps if you want a view. Take an alternative exercises and keep our roads safer. My last word on this topic as you will not persuade me and I not you. My sincere hope is that neither you or your other cycling brethren come to harm whilst indulging your dangerous hobby but I fear that some will.

No doubt you also consider walking outdated. Think how many more cars we could have clogging out towns if we got rid of pavements.

Who needs to go outdoors to get exercise when you can plug yourself into some kind of machine?

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
grandconjuration What an arrogant post! My views have as much validity and are as sincerely held as yours. They are not poorly thought out, they are just the opposite to yours and I totally refute they are not actual. Perhaps if you stopped insulting people here you might just see my point of view.
An example of a comment of yours that smacks of your own arrogance is that: 'Maybe it's because bikes and horses have been around for much longer than cars.' that does not necessarily mean that they should continue, I don't recall that steam engines are still used commercial rather they are in museums and kept off the main line, I consider that bikes and horse are a similar anachronism. Roads ought to be for the sole use of cars and other motor vehicles bikes are an outdated form of transport. If you want exercise, I suggest you buy an exercise bike and hook up to google maps if you want a view. Take an alternative exercises and keep our roads safer. My last word on this topic as you will not persuade me and I not you. My sincere hope is that neither you or your other cycling brethren come to harm whilst indulging your dangerous hobby but I fear that some will.[/p][/quote]No doubt you also consider walking outdated. Think how many more cars we could have clogging out towns if we got rid of pavements.
Who needs to go outdoors to get exercise when you can plug yourself into some kind of machine?Floflo

bodchris wrote:
grandconjuration What an arrogant post! My views have as much validity and are as sincerely held as yours. They are not poorly thought out, they are just the opposite to yours and I totally refute they are not actual. Perhaps if you stopped insulting people here you might just see my point of view.
An example of a comment of yours that smacks of your own arrogance is that: 'Maybe it's because bikes and horses have been around for much longer than cars.' that does not necessarily mean that they should continue, I don't recall that steam engines are still used commercial rather they are in museums and kept off the main line, I consider that bikes and horse are a similar anachronism. Roads ought to be for the sole use of cars and other motor vehicles bikes are an outdated form of transport. If you want exercise, I suggest you buy an exercise bike and hook up to google maps if you want a view. Take an alternative exercises and keep our roads safer. My last word on this topic as you will not persuade me and I not you. My sincere hope is that neither you or your other cycling brethren come to harm whilst indulging your dangerous hobby but I fear that some will.

In regard to harm physical inactivity is behind far more sickness and deaths than all road injuries and deaths put together. It places a huge burdon on the NHS.

Meanwhile adjusted life years for cycling is about 1 to 30 - meaning the gains in health outweigh the risks 30 to 1.

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
grandconjuration What an arrogant post! My views have as much validity and are as sincerely held as yours. They are not poorly thought out, they are just the opposite to yours and I totally refute they are not actual. Perhaps if you stopped insulting people here you might just see my point of view.
An example of a comment of yours that smacks of your own arrogance is that: 'Maybe it's because bikes and horses have been around for much longer than cars.' that does not necessarily mean that they should continue, I don't recall that steam engines are still used commercial rather they are in museums and kept off the main line, I consider that bikes and horse are a similar anachronism. Roads ought to be for the sole use of cars and other motor vehicles bikes are an outdated form of transport. If you want exercise, I suggest you buy an exercise bike and hook up to google maps if you want a view. Take an alternative exercises and keep our roads safer. My last word on this topic as you will not persuade me and I not you. My sincere hope is that neither you or your other cycling brethren come to harm whilst indulging your dangerous hobby but I fear that some will.[/p][/quote]In regard to harm physical inactivity is behind far more sickness and deaths than all road injuries and deaths put together. It places a huge burdon on the NHS.
Meanwhile adjusted life years for cycling is about 1 to 30 - meaning the gains in health outweigh the risks 30 to 1.Floflo

bodchris, your "arguments" are pitiful because they are semi-literate, badly -spelled, contradictory and based on a rank prejudice no different to racism.

You keep claiming more bicycles would make the roads more dangerous when the opposite is true:

http://www.scienceda
ily.com/releases/200
8/09/080903112034.ht
m

So, you are quite wrong. You are also plainly not very well educated. You ignore points that refute your laughable assertions and you seem unable to understand quite simple points. Did your wife run off with a cyclist or something?

bodchris, your "arguments" are pitiful because they are semi-literate, badly -spelled, contradictory and based on a rank prejudice no different to racism.
You keep claiming more bicycles would make the roads more dangerous when the opposite is true:
http://www.scienceda
ily.com/releases/200
8/09/080903112034.ht
m
So, you are quite wrong. You are also plainly not very well educated. You ignore points that refute your laughable assertions and you seem unable to understand quite simple points. Did your wife run off with a cyclist or something?Stevo98

Stevo98 you obviously have not read my previous posts. First I am dyslexic, second I am a UCL Graduate (just in case you don't know UCL is UNiversity College London a Russel Group UNiversity ranked number 7 in the world) and a Oxford Post Grad hold several professional diplomas, own my own business and by the standards of this world have 'done well'. So perhaps an apology for being unkind to my disability would be in order. I would also add that the statistics you draw attention may be skewed and like all statistics may be biased towards the inclinations of the author. So in my view they are next to meaningless.

BTW I just wanted to say how rediculous you all look in those stupid helmets... laughable.

Stevo98 you obviously have not read my previous posts. First I am dyslexic, second I am a UCL Graduate (just in case you don't know UCL is UNiversity College London a Russel Group UNiversity ranked number 7 in the world) and a Oxford Post Grad hold several professional diplomas, own my own business and by the standards of this world have 'done well'. So perhaps an apology for being unkind to my disability would be in order. I would also add that the statistics you draw attention may be skewed and like all statistics may be biased towards the inclinations of the author. So in my view they are next to meaningless.
BTW I just wanted to say how rediculous you all look in those stupid helmets... laughable.bodchris

bodchris wrote:
grandconjuration What an arrogant post! My views have as much validity and are as sincerely held as yours. They are not poorly thought out, they are just the opposite to yours and I totally refute they are not actual. Perhaps if you stopped insulting people here you might just see my point of view.
An example of a comment of yours that smacks of your own arrogance is that: 'Maybe it's because bikes and horses have been around for much longer than cars.' that does not necessarily mean that they should continue, I don't recall that steam engines are still used commercial rather they are in museums and kept off the main line, I consider that bikes and horse are a similar anachronism. Roads ought to be for the sole use of cars and other motor vehicles bikes are an outdated form of transport. If you want exercise, I suggest you buy an exercise bike and hook up to google maps if you want a view. Take an alternative exercises and keep our roads safer. My last word on this topic as you will not persuade me and I not you. My sincere hope is that neither you or your other cycling brethren come to harm whilst indulging your dangerous hobby but I fear that some will.

Why is stating a fact arrogant? Do you not agree that bicycles and horses pre-date motor vehicles?

Your arguments are poorly thought out and not backed up by any facts. Allow me to demonstrate. You claim that bicycles are an anachronism and compare then to steam locomotives. I'm no railway expert, but I put it to you that steam engines were replaced by diesel/electric locomotives due to the latter being more efficient, quicker, cleaner etc. It's a bit like natural selection, look it up.

Cycling is not an anachronism as it is the answer to many modern problems such as traffic congestion and fuel prices. This is reflected by the number of cyclists increasing year-on-year. Cycling is one of the most efficient modes of transport with regards to energy expenditure per mile. Indeed, no other form of transport has managed to surpass it; if it had then cycling would have died out like the steam locomotive. Bicycles are therefore not an anachronism.

You appear to regard cycling as only a hobby. This is incorrect, the vast majority of cyclists are getting from A to B - a bicycle is a vehicle that transports people!

I can see that you are passionate and sincere about your views. History is full of people who were passionate about their views, no matter how ridiculous they are or how many people suffer. Hitler springs to mind. Banning a large proportion of road users, preventing the transport of those who cannot afford a car, thinking that you have more right to get from A to B in safety all seem quite far right to me.

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
grandconjuration What an arrogant post! My views have as much validity and are as sincerely held as yours. They are not poorly thought out, they are just the opposite to yours and I totally refute they are not actual. Perhaps if you stopped insulting people here you might just see my point of view.
An example of a comment of yours that smacks of your own arrogance is that: 'Maybe it's because bikes and horses have been around for much longer than cars.' that does not necessarily mean that they should continue, I don't recall that steam engines are still used commercial rather they are in museums and kept off the main line, I consider that bikes and horse are a similar anachronism. Roads ought to be for the sole use of cars and other motor vehicles bikes are an outdated form of transport. If you want exercise, I suggest you buy an exercise bike and hook up to google maps if you want a view. Take an alternative exercises and keep our roads safer. My last word on this topic as you will not persuade me and I not you. My sincere hope is that neither you or your other cycling brethren come to harm whilst indulging your dangerous hobby but I fear that some will.[/p][/quote]Why is stating a fact arrogant? Do you not agree that bicycles and horses pre-date motor vehicles?
Your arguments are poorly thought out and not backed up by any facts. Allow me to demonstrate. You claim that bicycles are an anachronism and compare then to steam locomotives. I'm no railway expert, but I put it to you that steam engines were replaced by diesel/electric locomotives due to the latter being more efficient, quicker, cleaner etc. It's a bit like natural selection, look it up.
Cycling is not an anachronism as it is the answer to many modern problems such as traffic congestion and fuel prices. This is reflected by the number of cyclists increasing year-on-year. Cycling is one of the most efficient modes of transport with regards to energy expenditure per mile. Indeed, no other form of transport has managed to surpass it; if it had then cycling would have died out like the steam locomotive. Bicycles are therefore not an anachronism.
You appear to regard cycling as only a hobby. This is incorrect, the vast majority of cyclists are getting from A to B - a bicycle is a vehicle that transports people!
I can see that you are passionate and sincere about your views. History is full of people who were passionate about their views, no matter how ridiculous they are or how many people suffer. Hitler springs to mind. Banning a large proportion of road users, preventing the transport of those who cannot afford a car, thinking that you have more right to get from A to B in safety all seem quite far right to me.grandconjuration

Why are you even engaging with BobChris? He/It is clearly one of 2 things, an idiot or a troll.

If he's an idiot, he's clearly too dumb to take part in an logical discussion.

If it's a troll you're only giving it what it wants. Ignore it and it will slink back under its bridge.

Why are you even engaging with BobChris? He/It is clearly one of 2 things, an idiot or a troll.
If he's an idiot, he's clearly too dumb to take part in an logical discussion.
If it's a troll you're only giving it what it wants. Ignore it and it will slink back under its bridge.Madi50n

Heavens what an unpleasent bunch you all are, resorting to insults and rudeness. Unfortunate that you cannot accept that somebody else has a valid, and yes logical, argument that differs from your own.

I often travel to Holland on business and the most wonderful part of it is that one does not have to dodge the bikes that clog up our roads. I fervently hope and pray that all our roads will be bike free as cycle lanes are built. Again I hope that none of you end up like the unfortunate chap this thread was originally about.

Enough.

Heavens what an unpleasent bunch you all are, resorting to insults and rudeness. Unfortunate that you cannot accept that somebody else has a valid, and yes logical, argument that differs from your own.
I often travel to Holland on business and the most wonderful part of it is that one does not have to dodge the bikes that clog up our roads. I fervently hope and pray that all our roads will be bike free as cycle lanes are built. Again I hope that none of you end up like the unfortunate chap this thread was originally about.
Enough.bodchris

bodchris wrote:
Heavens what an unpleasent bunch you all are, resorting to insults and rudeness. Unfortunate that you cannot accept that somebody else has a valid, and yes logical, argument that differs from your own.

I often travel to Holland on business and the most wonderful part of it is that one does not have to dodge the bikes that clog up our roads. I fervently hope and pray that all our roads will be bike free as cycle lanes are built. Again I hope that none of you end up like the unfortunate chap this thread was originally about.

Enough.

So you are after special 'car lanes'? Stick to motorways and you'll be fine. Otherwise you really need to understand that our streets are there for people, not just people in cars.

I've also lived in The Netherlands so I'm surprised about your comments about Holland. Cyclists, just like any other for traffic, get in your way. In the words of Malcolm Tucker "Even cyclists hate f-ing cyclists"

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
Heavens what an unpleasent bunch you all are, resorting to insults and rudeness. Unfortunate that you cannot accept that somebody else has a valid, and yes logical, argument that differs from your own.
I often travel to Holland on business and the most wonderful part of it is that one does not have to dodge the bikes that clog up our roads. I fervently hope and pray that all our roads will be bike free as cycle lanes are built. Again I hope that none of you end up like the unfortunate chap this thread was originally about.
Enough.[/p][/quote]So you are after special 'car lanes'? Stick to motorways and you'll be fine. Otherwise you really need to understand that our streets are there for people, not just people in cars.
I've also lived in The Netherlands so I'm surprised about your comments about Holland. Cyclists, just like any other for traffic, get in your way. In the words of Malcolm Tucker "Even cyclists hate f-ing cyclists"Floflo

AngelB wrote:
Perhaps if the cyclist had bothered to put lights or reflectors on his bike before riding on a country lane at 9pm he would likely still be alive today.

However good and considerate a driver may be, if the driver can't see a pedestrian/cyclist on the road then they have little time to try to avoid them.

We all need to be responsible for our own safety to a certain extent, if cycling keep left and wear bright clothing and always have lights at night so drivers have a fair chance to see you.

Had it been a two car 9pm accident on a country lane and one car had no lights on then who would be judged to be at fault for the collision? My guess is the road user with no lights would be to blame!

The cyclist DID have lights; what you have done along with a lot of other people is read a report detailing Mr. Brown's CLAIM that the cyclist did not have lights and assume this to be true. The newspaper do not report everything said/heard in court, and in reality the court heard that forensic tests proved he had working lights. Not that it was even particularly dark anyway! Tests also showed Joe would have been visible to Mr. Brown for over 6 seconds prior to impact and he failed to notice him due to his gross inattention.

[quote][p][bold]AngelB[/bold] wrote:
Perhaps if the cyclist had bothered to put lights or reflectors on his bike before riding on a country lane at 9pm he would likely still be alive today.
However good and considerate a driver may be, if the driver can't see a pedestrian/cyclist on the road then they have little time to try to avoid them.
We all need to be responsible for our own safety to a certain extent, if cycling keep left and wear bright clothing and always have lights at night so drivers have a fair chance to see you.
Had it been a two car 9pm accident on a country lane and one car had no lights on then who would be judged to be at fault for the collision? My guess is the road user with no lights would be to blame![/p][/quote]The cyclist DID have lights; what you have done along with a lot of other people is read a report detailing Mr. Brown's CLAIM that the cyclist did not have lights and assume this to be true. The newspaper do not report everything said/heard in court, and in reality the court heard that forensic tests proved he had working lights. Not that it was even particularly dark anyway! Tests also showed Joe would have been visible to Mr. Brown for over 6 seconds prior to impact and he failed to notice him due to his gross inattention.Noodle999

Sophia wrote:
I disagree with a lot of this. Driver was not drunk, not exceeding speed limit, not doing dangerous maneouvres. Its legal to drive while using one hand to fiddle with the radio or satnav, I dont see why it is more dangerous to use on hand to lift a piece of food to your mouth. You dont use your eyes to eat!

People die by accident all the time, doesnt mean someone was at fault

State of mind of commenters is revealed by suggesting that driver must have been faking it to weep in witness box. Killing someone while driving is traumatic and can be devastating whether or not it was your fault

There is too much delight in condemning here. Sad aspect of our times. Your life is dull and unsatisfying but if for one moment you can righteously condemn another you get a little thrill....

All untimely deaths leave terrible grief behind, but research shows that when the survivors become consumed with desire for revenge aka 'justice', they do worse long term

You are speaking complete nonsense Sophia. You may not eat with your eyes, I don't eat with mine but it would seem perhaps Mr. Brown does... because the investigation showed he had OVER SIX SECONDS to see Joe and react to his presence on the road. Therefore it is a simple indesputable fact that his eyes and/or his mind were not focused on the road in front of him, but elsewhere instead.

You can attempt to make whatever arguments you like about the relative safety of various actions carried out whilst in charge of a vehicle, but the fact remains that Mr. Brown's actions led to him not concentrating on the road for over six seconds. If his actions had not caused him to lose sight of and/or attention to the road ahead, he would have seen Joe, reacted approriately and not hit him.

If you are driving a car at 55 to 60mph along a road, advancing at least 27 metres every second, then you have a DUTY, both legal and otherwise, to pay sufficient attention to what is in front of you. Different people have different capacities to multi-task, listen to the radio, change the station, converse with a passenger, follow a satnav etc. whilst still concentrating sufficiently on the road and clearly Mr. Brown's capacity to do this was not sufficient to allow him to drive at the same time as doing whatever he is doing.

As for relatives being consumed by the need for revenge, I doubt your comments will do anything for Miss Saunders as I very much doubt the reaction to the horrendous trauma of losing her partner and the father of her children is a conscious and deliberate reaction? I only hope she doesn't see many of these comments, written by idiots who need to engage their brain before operating their computer keyboard.

[quote][p][bold]Sophia[/bold] wrote:
I disagree with a lot of this. Driver was not drunk, not exceeding speed limit, not doing dangerous maneouvres. Its legal to drive while using one hand to fiddle with the radio or satnav, I dont see why it is more dangerous to use on hand to lift a piece of food to your mouth. You dont use your eyes to eat!
People die by accident all the time, doesnt mean someone was at fault
State of mind of commenters is revealed by suggesting that driver must have been faking it to weep in witness box. Killing someone while driving is traumatic and can be devastating whether or not it was your fault
There is too much delight in condemning here. Sad aspect of our times. Your life is dull and unsatisfying but if for one moment you can righteously condemn another you get a little thrill....
All untimely deaths leave terrible grief behind, but research shows that when the survivors become consumed with desire for revenge aka 'justice', they do worse long term[/p][/quote]You are speaking complete nonsense Sophia. You may not eat with your eyes, I don't eat with mine but it would seem perhaps Mr. Brown does... because the investigation showed he had OVER SIX SECONDS to see Joe and react to his presence on the road. Therefore it is a simple indesputable fact that his eyes and/or his mind were not focused on the road in front of him, but elsewhere instead.
You can attempt to make whatever arguments you like about the relative safety of various actions carried out whilst in charge of a vehicle, but the fact remains that Mr. Brown's actions led to him not concentrating on the road for over six seconds. If his actions had not caused him to lose sight of and/or attention to the road ahead, he would have seen Joe, reacted approriately and not hit him.
If you are driving a car at 55 to 60mph along a road, advancing at least 27 metres every second, then you have a DUTY, both legal and otherwise, to pay sufficient attention to what is in front of you. Different people have different capacities to multi-task, listen to the radio, change the station, converse with a passenger, follow a satnav etc. whilst still concentrating sufficiently on the road and clearly Mr. Brown's capacity to do this was not sufficient to allow him to drive at the same time as doing whatever he is doing.
As for relatives being consumed by the need for revenge, I doubt your comments will do anything for Miss Saunders as I very much doubt the reaction to the horrendous trauma of losing her partner and the father of her children is a conscious and deliberate reaction? I only hope she doesn't see many of these comments, written by idiots who need to engage their brain before operating their computer keyboard.Noodle999

In my last comment "at least 27 metres" should read "at nearly 27 metres". The perils of changing what you are writing half way through a sentence, but at least I'm still not talking anywhere near as much rubbish as half the people on here!

In my last comment "at least 27 metres" should read "at nearly 27 metres". The perils of changing what you are writing half way through a sentence, but at least I'm still not talking anywhere near as much rubbish as half the people on here!Noodle999

bodchris wrote:
Heavens what an unpleasent bunch you all are, resorting to insults and rudeness. Unfortunate that you cannot accept that somebody else has a valid, and yes logical, argument that differs from your own.

I often travel to Holland on business and the most wonderful part of it is that one does not have to dodge the bikes that clog up our roads. I fervently hope and pray that all our roads will be bike free as cycle lanes are built. Again I hope that none of you end up like the unfortunate chap this thread was originally about.

Enough.

At last we agree on something bodchris! You want us to become more like the Netherlands and increase the number of cycle lanes. I admire your support for the cycling community and all of those people who rely on their bicycles for transport.

You do of course realise (from your business trips) that the Netherlands have been able to provide high quality cycle lanes through the reduction of space for cars. Indeed, the use of motor vehicles in many Dutch towns and cities is discouraged, which probably explains why cycling accounts for over half of all trips within Dutch cities. I'm sure you won't mind many roads in UK towns and cities being adapted to follow the Dutch model. This would involve the conversion of many 'car' lanes into cycle only paths. Taking Oxford as an example, arterial roads such as Abingdon Road, London Road and Headington Road would have to be reduced to a single lane for cars so that an equal width of road is reserved for a bidirectional cycling lane at least 3 metres wide. But I'm sure you won't mind that. I'm also sure that you'll agree with the Dutch example of reducing car parking facilities in towns, again to dissuade car use.

In the Netherlands, junctions between roads and cycle paths often give priority to the cyclist. Furthermore, many urban areas are organised as 'living streets' where pedestrians and cyclists have priority over motor vehicles. I'm sure you're fully bought in to that idea.

While we're busy making the UK more like the Netherlands, we could also follow them in adopting a Strict Liability Law that automatically leads to driver's insurance being deemed to be responsible in a collision between a car and a cyclist. We can also follow their example in thinking that helmets are ridiculous for urban cycling and making it a planning law that all shops have to supply cycle parking facilities.

Of course, even the Dutch can't provide a totally segregated system for motorists and cyclists, so where they do have to share a stretch of road the speed is restricted so that the differential in speed between both forms of transport is minimal.

You do talk sense bodchris! We finally got there.

Changing subject, a quick Google search for 'bodchris' has pulled up interesting viewing. It seems that it's not only Oxfordshire's cycling community that you dislike, and you also appear to have interests that I would describe as 'dubious'. And how come the 'dyslexia' seems to be intermittent?

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
Heavens what an unpleasent bunch you all are, resorting to insults and rudeness. Unfortunate that you cannot accept that somebody else has a valid, and yes logical, argument that differs from your own.
I often travel to Holland on business and the most wonderful part of it is that one does not have to dodge the bikes that clog up our roads. I fervently hope and pray that all our roads will be bike free as cycle lanes are built. Again I hope that none of you end up like the unfortunate chap this thread was originally about.
Enough.[/p][/quote]At last we agree on something bodchris! You want us to become more like the Netherlands and increase the number of cycle lanes. I admire your support for the cycling community and all of those people who rely on their bicycles for transport.
You do of course realise (from your business trips) that the Netherlands have been able to provide high quality cycle lanes through the reduction of space for cars. Indeed, the use of motor vehicles in many Dutch towns and cities is discouraged, which probably explains why cycling accounts for over half of all trips within Dutch cities. I'm sure you won't mind many roads in UK towns and cities being adapted to follow the Dutch model. This would involve the conversion of many 'car' lanes into cycle only paths. Taking Oxford as an example, arterial roads such as Abingdon Road, London Road and Headington Road would have to be reduced to a single lane for cars so that an equal width of road is reserved for a bidirectional cycling lane at least 3 metres wide. But I'm sure you won't mind that. I'm also sure that you'll agree with the Dutch example of reducing car parking facilities in towns, again to dissuade car use.
In the Netherlands, junctions between roads and cycle paths often give priority to the cyclist. Furthermore, many urban areas are organised as 'living streets' where pedestrians and cyclists have priority over motor vehicles. I'm sure you're fully bought in to that idea.
While we're busy making the UK more like the Netherlands, we could also follow them in adopting a Strict Liability Law that automatically leads to driver's insurance being deemed to be responsible in a collision between a car and a cyclist. We can also follow their example in thinking that helmets are ridiculous for urban cycling and making it a planning law that all shops have to supply cycle parking facilities.
Of course, even the Dutch can't provide a totally segregated system for motorists and cyclists, so where they do have to share a stretch of road the speed is restricted so that the differential in speed between both forms of transport is minimal.
You do talk sense bodchris! We finally got there.
Changing subject, a quick Google search for 'bodchris' has pulled up interesting viewing. It seems that it's not only Oxfordshire's cycling community that you dislike, and you also appear to have interests that I would describe as 'dubious'. And how come the 'dyslexia' seems to be intermittent?grandconjuration

As a recent convert to road cycling I now appreciate how dangerous roads are to cyclists. I used to get very annoyed at being stuck behind cyclists whilst driving.

Patience is needed by drivers, an additional minute here and there to pass safely. Everyone would be much calmer and safer.

That said, I'm personally not convinced a custodial sentence would be beneficial here, the defendant won't learn anything from it, he has a life sentence on his head now. Don't think he will ever stop thinking of all the what ifs.

I do however fully sympathise with the victims family, they obviously want justice, and feel let down.

It's a shame this thread has been dominated by people bickering about who's views are correct.

RIP Joe

As a recent convert to road cycling I now appreciate how dangerous roads are to cyclists. I used to get very annoyed at being stuck behind cyclists whilst driving.
Patience is needed by drivers, an additional minute here and there to pass safely. Everyone would be much calmer and safer.
That said, I'm personally not convinced a custodial sentence would be beneficial here, the defendant won't learn anything from it, he has a life sentence on his head now. Don't think he will ever stop thinking of all the what ifs.
I do however fully sympathise with the victims family, they obviously want justice, and feel let down.
It's a shame this thread has been dominated by people bickering about who's views are correct.
RIP JoeDoctor69

"Changing subject, a quick Google search for 'bodchris' has pulled up interesting viewing. It seems that it's not only Oxfordshire's cycling community that you dislike, and you also appear to have interests that I would describe as 'dubious'. And how come the 'dyslexia' seems to be intermittent?"

Eww.

It seems out bodcgris enjoys the murkier corners of the internet and..specialised interests.

"Changing subject, a quick Google search for 'bodchris' has pulled up interesting viewing. It seems that it's not only Oxfordshire's cycling community that you dislike, and you also appear to have interests that I would describe as 'dubious'. And how come the 'dyslexia' seems to be intermittent?"
Eww.
It seems out bodcgris enjoys the murkier corners of the internet and..specialised interests.Stevo98

Stevo98 grandconjuration you do your argument a great diservice by resorting to unpleasent and incorrect personal attacks.

Doctor69 I respect your comments they make sense. Sadly the two above are dyed in the wool sports cyclists and therefore unlikely to listen to either you or me: cycling is inherently dangerous to the person who cycles and to whatever degtree of sense this makes it makes no sense to them. Had sports cyclist been banned from the roads as they should be this sad accident would not have happened. An analogy which they will not understand and will try to distort is this: small aircraft and sports flyers are not allowed into the airspace of passenger jets because of the danger of collision, yet everyday sports cyclists risk their own lives and others upon the 'altar of cycling supremecy' and travel, sometimes enmasse, on Britains crowded roads. How would passengers and pilots of commercial jets feel if they had to dodge slow flying propellor driven planes?

Stevo98 grandconjuration you do your argument a great diservice by resorting to unpleasent and incorrect personal attacks.
Doctor69 I respect your comments they make sense. Sadly the two above are dyed in the wool sports cyclists and therefore unlikely to listen to either you or me: cycling is inherently dangerous to the person who cycles and to whatever degtree of sense this makes it makes no sense to them. Had sports cyclist been banned from the roads as they should be this sad accident would not have happened. An analogy which they will not understand and will try to distort is this: small aircraft and sports flyers are not allowed into the airspace of passenger jets because of the danger of collision, yet everyday sports cyclists risk their own lives and others upon the 'altar of cycling supremecy' and travel, sometimes enmasse, on Britains crowded roads. How would passengers and pilots of commercial jets feel if they had to dodge slow flying propellor driven planes?bodchris

Why do you keep posting this garbage when you've been told it's complete nonsense and you have provided zero evidence for it? That's the sort of thing an oddball nazi-obsessed internet weirdo would do:

A 2007 Cycling England report that estimated the economic value of cycling, found that the health benefits could be valued at £87-300 per cyclist per year, depending on their age, fitness level, and neighbourhood.

Active travel such as riding and walking has many health benefits including improved mental health, a reduced risk of premature death, and prevention of chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, depression, dementia, and cancer.

Transport-related physical inactivity in England is estimated to cost £9.8 billion per year to the economy. This figure is in addition to the £2.5 billion in healthcare costs spent annually on treating obesity.

The health benefits of cycling in Britain outweigh the risks involved by a factor of 20:1 (a figure now acknowledged by the UK Government)

This study took place in Copenhagen, Denmark over 14.5 years. It found that cycling to work (an average of 3 hours cycling per week) decreased risk of mortality by about 40% compared to a sedentary control group. This study involved 30,000 people. The study took into account age, health status, and socio-economic factors such as education. It also found that older people gained even more from physical activity than younger people.

The full report can be found at: http://archinte.ama-
assn.org/issues/v160
n11/full/ioi90593.ht
ml

"cycling is inherently dangerous to the person who cycles "
Why do you keep posting this garbage when you've been told it's complete nonsense and you have provided zero evidence for it? That's the sort of thing an oddball nazi-obsessed internet weirdo would do:
Driving is five times more dangerous than cycling for young men:
http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/finance/newsb
ysector/transport/97
29218/Driving-is-fiv
e-times-more-dangero
us-than-cycling-for-
young-men.html
The health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks (BMA, 1992) by a substantial margin.
Health related life-years gained outweigh injury-related life-years lost by 20:1
Hillman, 1992
A 2007 Cycling England report that estimated the economic value of cycling, found that the health benefits could be valued at £87-300 per cyclist per year, depending on their age, fitness level, and neighbourhood.
Active travel such as riding and walking has many health benefits including improved mental health, a reduced risk of premature death, and prevention of chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, depression, dementia, and cancer.
Transport-related physical inactivity in England is estimated to cost £9.8 billion per year to the economy. This figure is in addition to the £2.5 billion in healthcare costs spent annually on treating obesity.
The health benefits of cycling in Britain outweigh the risks involved by a factor of 20:1 (a figure now acknowledged by the UK Government)
This study took place in Copenhagen, Denmark over 14.5 years. It found that cycling to work (an average of 3 hours cycling per week) decreased risk of mortality by about 40% compared to a sedentary control group. This study involved 30,000 people. The study took into account age, health status, and socio-economic factors such as education. It also found that older people gained even more from physical activity than younger people.
The full report can be found at: http://archinte.ama-
assn.org/issues/v160
n11/full/ioi90593.ht
mlStevo98

Cycling is one of the easiest ways to exercise
You can ride a bicycle almost anywhere, at any time of the year, and without spending a fortune. Many people are put off doing certain sports because of the high level of skill that seems to be required, or perhaps because they can’t commit to a team sport due to time pressures. Most of us know how to cycle and once you have learned you don’t forget. All you need is a bike, a half an hour here or there when it suits, and a bit of confidence.

Cycling builds strength and muscle tone
Contrary to normal perceptions, cycling is not a fitness activity that solely involves the legs. Cycling builds strength in a holistic manner since every single part of the body is involved in cycling.

Cycling increases muscle tone
Cycling improves general muscle function gradually, with little risk of over exercise or strain. Regular cycling strengthens leg muscles and is great for the mobility of hip and knee joints. You will gradually begin to see an improvement in the muscle tone of your legs, thighs, rear end and hips.

Cycling builds stamina
Cycling is a good way to build stamina. It is very effective in doing so,
because people enjoy cycling and they wouldn’t really notice that they have
gone farther the last time they went cycling.

Cycling improves cardio-vascular fitness
Cycling makes the heart pound in a steady manner and helps improve cardio-vascular fitness. Studies have shown that cycling to work will increase cardiovascular fitness by 3-7%. Cycling uses the largest muscle groups the legs, raising heart rate to benefit stamina and fitness.

Cycling eats up calories
Cycling is a good way to lose those unwanted pounds. Steady cycling burns approximately 300 calories per hour. If you cycle for 30 minutes every day you would burn 11 pounds of fat in a year. Since it helps build muscle, cycling will also boost your metabolic rate long after you’ve finished your ride.

Cycling improves heart health
According to the British Medical Association, cycling just 20 miles a week can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease by 50%. A major study of 10,000 civil servants suggested that those who cycled 20 miles over the period of a week were half as likely to suffer heart disease as their non-cycling colleagues.

Cycling improves coordination
Cycling is an activity that involves the whole body. Therefore, arm-to-leg, feet-to-hands and body-to-eye coordination are improved.

Cycling reduces stress
Any regular exercise can reduce stress and depression and improve well being and self esteem. Cycling outdoors is also a good way to be one with nature and to feel the breath of the earth. It takes one’s mind out of everyday-life stress and rejuvenates his soul.

Cycling is one of the easiest ways to exercise
You can ride a bicycle almost anywhere, at any time of the year, and without spending a fortune. Many people are put off doing certain sports because of the high level of skill that seems to be required, or perhaps because they can’t commit to a team sport due to time pressures. Most of us know how to cycle and once you have learned you don’t forget. All you need is a bike, a half an hour here or there when it suits, and a bit of confidence.
Cycling builds strength and muscle tone
Contrary to normal perceptions, cycling is not a fitness activity that solely involves the legs. Cycling builds strength in a holistic manner since every single part of the body is involved in cycling.
Cycling increases muscle tone
Cycling improves general muscle function gradually, with little risk of over exercise or strain. Regular cycling strengthens leg muscles and is great for the mobility of hip and knee joints. You will gradually begin to see an improvement in the muscle tone of your legs, thighs, rear end and hips.
Cycling builds stamina
Cycling is a good way to build stamina. It is very effective in doing so,
because people enjoy cycling and they wouldn’t really notice that they have
gone farther the last time they went cycling.
Cycling improves cardio-vascular fitness
Cycling makes the heart pound in a steady manner and helps improve cardio-vascular fitness. Studies have shown that cycling to work will increase cardiovascular fitness by 3-7%. Cycling uses the largest muscle groups the legs, raising heart rate to benefit stamina and fitness.
Cycling eats up calories
Cycling is a good way to lose those unwanted pounds. Steady cycling burns approximately 300 calories per hour. If you cycle for 30 minutes every day you would burn 11 pounds of fat in a year. Since it helps build muscle, cycling will also boost your metabolic rate long after you’ve finished your ride.
Cycling improves heart health
According to the British Medical Association, cycling just 20 miles a week can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease by 50%. A major study of 10,000 civil servants suggested that those who cycled 20 miles over the period of a week were half as likely to suffer heart disease as their non-cycling colleagues.
Cycling improves coordination
Cycling is an activity that involves the whole body. Therefore, arm-to-leg, feet-to-hands and body-to-eye coordination are improved.
Cycling reduces stress
Any regular exercise can reduce stress and depression and improve well being and self esteem. Cycling outdoors is also a good way to be one with nature and to feel the breath of the earth. It takes one’s mind out of everyday-life stress and rejuvenates his soul.Stevo98

bodchris wrote:
Stevo98 grandconjuration you do your argument a great diservice by resorting to unpleasent and incorrect personal attacks.

Doctor69 I respect your comments they make sense. Sadly the two above are dyed in the wool sports cyclists and therefore unlikely to listen to either you or me: cycling is inherently dangerous to the person who cycles and to whatever degtree of sense this makes it makes no sense to them. Had sports cyclist been banned from the roads as they should be this sad accident would not have happened. An analogy which they will not understand and will try to distort is this: small aircraft and sports flyers are not allowed into the airspace of passenger jets because of the danger of collision, yet everyday sports cyclists risk their own lives and others upon the 'altar of cycling supremecy' and travel, sometimes enmasse, on Britains crowded roads. How would passengers and pilots of commercial jets feel if they had to dodge slow flying propellor driven planes?

Hang on, I'm not for banning cycling or anything else.
I'm just saying I don't personally think a prison sentence would solve things.
I enjoy cycling, and as a driver I now have a lot more patience around cyclists.

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
Stevo98 grandconjuration you do your argument a great diservice by resorting to unpleasent and incorrect personal attacks.
Doctor69 I respect your comments they make sense. Sadly the two above are dyed in the wool sports cyclists and therefore unlikely to listen to either you or me: cycling is inherently dangerous to the person who cycles and to whatever degtree of sense this makes it makes no sense to them. Had sports cyclist been banned from the roads as they should be this sad accident would not have happened. An analogy which they will not understand and will try to distort is this: small aircraft and sports flyers are not allowed into the airspace of passenger jets because of the danger of collision, yet everyday sports cyclists risk their own lives and others upon the 'altar of cycling supremecy' and travel, sometimes enmasse, on Britains crowded roads. How would passengers and pilots of commercial jets feel if they had to dodge slow flying propellor driven planes?[/p][/quote]Hang on, I'm not for banning cycling or anything else.
I'm just saying I don't personally think a prison sentence would solve things.
I enjoy cycling, and as a driver I now have a lot more patience around cyclists.Doctor69

Although Bodchris could have worded some of his views more sensitively, I agree with the gist of what he is saying. 10-25mph vehicles should not be moving along the same strip of tarmac as 60mph vehicles. How can this make sense? Most of the problems in this world can be fixed with technology and engineering, however the majority of plebs seem to prefer the idea of punishment. I have nothing against cycling at all, but it does not belong on the roads. It was OK in 1930 with the occasional car and odd horse cart, but now our roads are busy! We need to engineer a solution which makes the roads safe for cyclists. No amount of locking people up is going to achieve this. Using the brain power of intelligent people and human engineering capabilities will.

Bodchris is accused of "hijacking" this thread as a platorm for his own views. I think there are more people than Chris on here who are guilty of that. People seem to love any opportunity to present themselves as perfect and of moral superiority. Nothing like the subject of road safety to get people on their high horses, when they probably do downright stupid things themselves on the road. I know someone who thinks that if a carrier bag e.g. blows into your windscreen, obscures your view and you hit someone, that it's your fault; yet this partitcular driver, regularly drives too close to the vehicle in front. I wonder how many people like this are on here preaching their "perfect" driving skills?

We need to take a leaf out of the Netherlands' book and create seperate cycle lanes. It is just ridiculous that we mix all traffic up in this way. Why are tractors and mopeds not allowed on motorways? Because they are slow moving vehicles and would create a danger to themselves and others.

I am not trying to absolve Paul from all blame. He made a mistake and allowed himself to be distracted. He is now going to be suitably punished for driving carelessly. Not for having 10 pints in the local and driving home afterwards, not for avoiding being in a stolen car and trying to get away from the police in desperation, not for deliberately ramming the cyclist off the road in anger, he is being punished for careless driving. Get off your high horses and look at it proportunately.

I know that Paull will relive the event for the rest of his life. It amazes me that people can show every bit of empathy and compassion for the deceased family, yet put the blinkers on when it comes to Paul. I think this is because they are not really interested in the welfare of the Wilkins family, they are more interested in telling the world what perfect drivers they are. It's pathetic. Why are people so stupid? It's 2013 and people still have the "burn the witch" mentality. I honestly think that most of the cretins in this country would be happier with a system of stringing people up from the nearest lamp post based on hearsay and emotions rather than a judicial system. Noone likes the facts to get in the way of a good story.

He was convicted of death by careless driving NOT dangerous, which is why we have laws which recognise that rather than simply hanging people for everything from stealing a bag of sweets to first degree murder.

Anyone on here who believes that there is no other solution to cycling deaths to locking people up for years on end, frankly belongs in a zoo.

Although Bodchris could have worded some of his views more sensitively, I agree with the gist of what he is saying. 10-25mph vehicles should not be moving along the same strip of tarmac as 60mph vehicles. How can this make sense? Most of the problems in this world can be fixed with technology and engineering, however the majority of plebs seem to prefer the idea of punishment. I have nothing against cycling at all, but it does not belong on the roads. It was OK in 1930 with the occasional car and odd horse cart, but now our roads are busy! We need to engineer a solution which makes the roads safe for cyclists. No amount of locking people up is going to achieve this. Using the brain power of intelligent people and human engineering capabilities will.
Bodchris is accused of "hijacking" this thread as a platorm for his own views. I think there are more people than Chris on here who are guilty of that. People seem to love any opportunity to present themselves as perfect and of moral superiority. Nothing like the subject of road safety to get people on their high horses, when they probably do downright stupid things themselves on the road. I know someone who thinks that if a carrier bag e.g. blows into your windscreen, obscures your view and you hit someone, that it's your fault; yet this partitcular driver, regularly drives too close to the vehicle in front. I wonder how many people like this are on here preaching their "perfect" driving skills?
We need to take a leaf out of the Netherlands' book and create seperate cycle lanes. It is just ridiculous that we mix all traffic up in this way. Why are tractors and mopeds not allowed on motorways? Because they are slow moving vehicles and would create a danger to themselves and others.
I am not trying to absolve Paul from all blame. He made a mistake and allowed himself to be distracted. He is now going to be suitably punished for driving carelessly. Not for having 10 pints in the local and driving home afterwards, not for avoiding being in a stolen car and trying to get away from the police in desperation, not for deliberately ramming the cyclist off the road in anger, he is being punished for careless driving. Get off your high horses and look at it proportunately.
I know that Paull will relive the event for the rest of his life. It amazes me that people can show every bit of empathy and compassion for the deceased family, yet put the blinkers on when it comes to Paul. I think this is because they are not really interested in the welfare of the Wilkins family, they are more interested in telling the world what perfect drivers they are. It's pathetic. Why are people so stupid? It's 2013 and people still have the "burn the witch" mentality. I honestly think that most of the cretins in this country would be happier with a system of stringing people up from the nearest lamp post based on hearsay and emotions rather than a judicial system. Noone likes the facts to get in the way of a good story.
He was convicted of death by careless driving NOT dangerous, which is why we have laws which recognise that rather than simply hanging people for everything from stealing a bag of sweets to first degree murder.
Anyone on here who believes that there is no other solution to cycling deaths to locking people up for years on end, frankly belongs in a zoo.tinsel84

bodchris wrote:
Stevo98 grandconjuration you do your argument a great diservice by resorting to unpleasent and incorrect personal attacks.

Doctor69 I respect your comments they make sense. Sadly the two above are dyed in the wool sports cyclists and therefore unlikely to listen to either you or me: cycling is inherently dangerous to the person who cycles and to whatever degtree of sense this makes it makes no sense to them. Had sports cyclist been banned from the roads as they should be this sad accident would not have happened. An analogy which they will not understand and will try to distort is this: small aircraft and sports flyers are not allowed into the airspace of passenger jets because of the danger of collision, yet everyday sports cyclists risk their own lives and others upon the 'altar of cycling supremecy' and travel, sometimes enmasse, on Britains crowded roads. How would passengers and pilots of commercial jets feel if they had to dodge slow flying propellor driven planes?

You keep referring to your views as being just as valid as mine bodchris. I haven’t been communicating my views or my personal opinion, I’ve been stating facts that are based on UK law or statistical evidence. Let’s recap some of my major points...

There is no such thing as road tax. (A form of road taxation was removed by Winston Churchill in 1937. I was under the impression that you had an interest in the history of this era, or maybe your interest is focussed wholly on ‘the other side’).

Bicycles, pedestrians and horses have a right to use roads (with the exception of motorways).

You do not have a right to drive a motor vehicle on the roads. You are required to possess a driving licence, which can be revoked if you misbehave.

Cycling is not inherently dangerous (look up the definition of the word ‘inherent’).

It is illegal to perform any action that distracts you from being in full control of a motor vehicle.

A motorist has a duty to other road users to always be control of their vehicle.

The behaviors that are expected of motorists when in the vicinity of a vulnerable road user are explained within the Highway Code.

Bicycling is a form of transport.

If you refute any of these points then please provide the relevant legislation. If you disagree with these points, then we do live in a free country; feel free to campaign against cycling, take it to your MP, make some placards. You will come across as a complete idiot with an inability to put together a serious argument like you have already.

Until you have had the law changed and banished non-motorised forms of transport to history then please follow the rules of the road that society has put in place. If you make the decision not to follow them, please surrender your driving licence.

For the record, I have not made any comment about the driver in this case receiving a custodial sentence. However, he should not be given permission to drive on our roads ever again, a one year ban is shameful.

I won’t even comment on your ‘analogy’ you sad little man.

[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote:
Stevo98 grandconjuration you do your argument a great diservice by resorting to unpleasent and incorrect personal attacks.
Doctor69 I respect your comments they make sense. Sadly the two above are dyed in the wool sports cyclists and therefore unlikely to listen to either you or me: cycling is inherently dangerous to the person who cycles and to whatever degtree of sense this makes it makes no sense to them. Had sports cyclist been banned from the roads as they should be this sad accident would not have happened. An analogy which they will not understand and will try to distort is this: small aircraft and sports flyers are not allowed into the airspace of passenger jets because of the danger of collision, yet everyday sports cyclists risk their own lives and others upon the 'altar of cycling supremecy' and travel, sometimes enmasse, on Britains crowded roads. How would passengers and pilots of commercial jets feel if they had to dodge slow flying propellor driven planes?[/p][/quote]You keep referring to your views as being just as valid as mine bodchris. I haven’t been communicating my views or my personal opinion, I’ve been stating facts that are based on UK law or statistical evidence. Let’s recap some of my major points...
There is no such thing as road tax. (A form of road taxation was removed by Winston Churchill in 1937. I was under the impression that you had an interest in the history of this era, or maybe your interest is focussed wholly on ‘the other side’).
Bicycles, pedestrians and horses have a right to use roads (with the exception of motorways).
You do not have a right to drive a motor vehicle on the roads. You are required to possess a driving licence, which can be revoked if you misbehave.
Cycling is not inherently dangerous (look up the definition of the word ‘inherent’).
It is illegal to perform any action that distracts you from being in full control of a motor vehicle.
A motorist has a duty to other road users to always be control of their vehicle.
The behaviors that are expected of motorists when in the vicinity of a vulnerable road user are explained within the Highway Code.
Bicycling is a form of transport.
If you refute any of these points then please provide the relevant legislation. If you disagree with these points, then we do live in a free country; feel free to campaign against cycling, take it to your MP, make some placards. You will come across as a complete idiot with an inability to put together a serious argument like you have already.
Until you have had the law changed and banished non-motorised forms of transport to history then please follow the rules of the road that society has put in place. If you make the decision not to follow them, please surrender your driving licence.
For the record, I have not made any comment about the driver in this case receiving a custodial sentence. However, he should not be given permission to drive on our roads ever again, a one year ban is shameful.
I won’t even comment on your ‘analogy’ you sad little man.grandconjuration

Anybody who thinks it' just fine to be distracted while driving and not looking where you are going should read this:
http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/uknews/c
rime/10293094/It-too
k-satnav-18-seconds-
to-tear-two-families
-apart.htmlgrandconjuration

tinsel84 wrote:
Although Bodchris could have worded some of his views more sensitively, I agree with the gist of what he is saying. 10-25mph vehicles should not be moving along the same strip of tarmac as 60mph vehicles. How can this make sense? Most of the problems in this world can be fixed with technology and engineering, however the majority of plebs seem to prefer the idea of punishment. I have nothing against cycling at all, but it does not belong on the roads. It was OK in 1930 with the occasional car and odd horse cart, but now our roads are busy! We need to engineer a solution which makes the roads safe for cyclists. No amount of locking people up is going to achieve this. Using the brain power of intelligent people and human engineering capabilities will.

Bodchris is accused of &quot;hijacking" this thread as a platorm for his own views. I think there are more people than Chris on here who are guilty of that. People seem to love any opportunity to present themselves as perfect and of moral superiority. Nothing like the subject of road safety to get people on their high horses, when they probably do downright stupid things themselves on the road. I know someone who thinks that if a carrier bag e.g. blows into your windscreen, obscures your view and you hit someone, that it's your fault; yet this partitcular driver, regularly drives too close to the vehicle in front. I wonder how many people like this are on here preaching their "perfect" driving skills?

We need to take a leaf out of the Netherlands' book and create seperate cycle lanes. It is just ridiculous that we mix all traffic up in this way. Why are tractors and mopeds not allowed on motorways? Because they are slow moving vehicles and would create a danger to themselves and others.

I am not trying to absolve Paul from all blame. He made a mistake and allowed himself to be distracted. He is now going to be suitably punished for driving carelessly. Not for having 10 pints in the local and driving home afterwards, not for avoiding being in a stolen car and trying to get away from the police in desperation, not for deliberately ramming the cyclist off the road in anger, he is being punished for careless driving. Get off your high horses and look at it proportunately.

I know that Paull will relive the event for the rest of his life. It amazes me that people can show every bit of empathy and compassion for the deceased family, yet put the blinkers on when it comes to Paul. I think this is because they are not really interested in the welfare of the Wilkins family, they are more interested in telling the world what perfect drivers they are. It's pathetic. Why are people so stupid? It's 2013 and people still have the "burn the witch" mentality. I honestly think that most of the cretins in this country would be happier with a system of stringing people up from the nearest lamp post based on hearsay and emotions rather than a judicial system. Noone likes the facts to get in the way of a good story.

He was convicted of death by careless driving NOT dangerous, which is why we have laws which recognise that rather than simply hanging people for everything from stealing a bag of sweets to first degree murder.

Anyone on here who believes that there is no other solution to cycling deaths to locking people up for years on end, frankly belongs in a zoo.

It does make sense having them on the same stretch of road, I mean, for one thing tractors (generally 15-30mph) travel on the same roads as cars going 60(+)mph, but you are not against them? Perhaps because you would come worse off if you hit that... And FYI tractors AND cyclists aren't allowed on motorways.

The point is we should all be looking out for each other. Segregating cyclists just build a more "us-vs-them" scenario. Plus it means drivers would notice them (even) less when there is not the opportunity to use these imagined segregated cycle lanes of the future. I say this as a primarily a motorist , and a cyclist to get to work through the city centre. And anyway, this story is about an criminally negligent driver. Yes I feel a bit sorry for him, and hope he will regret it. But I'd like to think I'd admit to what I'd done (i.e. not paid attention for over 6 seconds on a country lane) and accept the consequences for such recklessness. Many people are simply voicing their concerns that 240 hours community service is not really adequate for taking a life, which was entirely preventable, whether they regret it or not. If someone was broken down on the side of that road (which people are allowed to do, despite the huge difference in speed between their 0mph and a cars' 60mph) I wonder if the outcome would really have been any different? And then what would all these anti-cyclists have to complain about?

[quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote:
Although Bodchris could have worded some of his views more sensitively, I agree with the gist of what he is saying. 10-25mph vehicles should not be moving along the same strip of tarmac as 60mph vehicles. How can this make sense? Most of the problems in this world can be fixed with technology and engineering, however the majority of plebs seem to prefer the idea of punishment. I have nothing against cycling at all, but it does not belong on the roads. It was OK in 1930 with the occasional car and odd horse cart, but now our roads are busy! We need to engineer a solution which makes the roads safe for cyclists. No amount of locking people up is going to achieve this. Using the brain power of intelligent people and human engineering capabilities will.
Bodchris is accused of "hijacking" this thread as a platorm for his own views. I think there are more people than Chris on here who are guilty of that. People seem to love any opportunity to present themselves as perfect and of moral superiority. Nothing like the subject of road safety to get people on their high horses, when they probably do downright stupid things themselves on the road. I know someone who thinks that if a carrier bag e.g. blows into your windscreen, obscures your view and you hit someone, that it's your fault; yet this partitcular driver, regularly drives too close to the vehicle in front. I wonder how many people like this are on here preaching their "perfect" driving skills?
We need to take a leaf out of the Netherlands' book and create seperate cycle lanes. It is just ridiculous that we mix all traffic up in this way. Why are tractors and mopeds not allowed on motorways? Because they are slow moving vehicles and would create a danger to themselves and others.
I am not trying to absolve Paul from all blame. He made a mistake and allowed himself to be distracted. He is now going to be suitably punished for driving carelessly. Not for having 10 pints in the local and driving home afterwards, not for avoiding being in a stolen car and trying to get away from the police in desperation, not for deliberately ramming the cyclist off the road in anger, he is being punished for careless driving. Get off your high horses and look at it proportunately.
I know that Paull will relive the event for the rest of his life. It amazes me that people can show every bit of empathy and compassion for the deceased family, yet put the blinkers on when it comes to Paul. I think this is because they are not really interested in the welfare of the Wilkins family, they are more interested in telling the world what perfect drivers they are. It's pathetic. Why are people so stupid? It's 2013 and people still have the "burn the witch" mentality. I honestly think that most of the cretins in this country would be happier with a system of stringing people up from the nearest lamp post based on hearsay and emotions rather than a judicial system. Noone likes the facts to get in the way of a good story.
He was convicted of death by careless driving NOT dangerous, which is why we have laws which recognise that rather than simply hanging people for everything from stealing a bag of sweets to first degree murder.
Anyone on here who believes that there is no other solution to cycling deaths to locking people up for years on end, frankly belongs in a zoo.[/p][/quote]It does make sense having them on the same stretch of road, I mean, for one thing tractors (generally 15-30mph) travel on the same roads as cars going 60(+)mph, but you are not against them? Perhaps because you would come worse off if you hit that... And FYI tractors AND cyclists aren't allowed on motorways.
The point is we should all be looking out for each other. Segregating cyclists just build a more "us-vs-them" scenario. Plus it means drivers would notice them (even) less when there is not the opportunity to use these imagined segregated cycle lanes of the future. I say this as a primarily a motorist , and a cyclist to get to work through the city centre. And anyway, this story is about an criminally negligent driver. Yes I feel a bit sorry for him, and hope he will regret it. But I'd like to think I'd admit to what I'd done (i.e. not paid attention for over 6 seconds on a country lane) and accept the consequences for such recklessness. Many people are simply voicing their concerns that 240 hours community service is not really adequate for taking a life, which was entirely preventable, whether they regret it or not. If someone was broken down on the side of that road (which people are allowed to do, despite the huge difference in speed between their 0mph and a cars' 60mph) I wonder if the outcome would really have been any different? And then what would all these anti-cyclists have to complain about?LouiseOxford